|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fighting the Liturgical War
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
Copied from Hell thread (The Episcopal Church)
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin: quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I fight the liturgical war all the time, even to the point of defending the use of lectionary readings at all. The list could go on and on... For me, TEC does offer quite a bit: priests trained in liturgy (even the most contemporary-leaning around here respect the Rite), proper ablutions and tabernacles or aumbries...
'Fight the liturgical war' - why? We've all got personal preferences, of course, but your concerns seem based on something deeper. What are proper ablutions, tabernacles and aumbries; how do improper versions of those things differ? How do we know which is proper and which is improper? Why does this all matter so much that it's worth 'fight[ing] the liturgical war' over?
Questions all somewhat rhetorical, but I'll be interested to read any answers you're inclined to give. Maybe a discussion for a separate (non-Hellish?) thread? [Smile]
Mind you, I do agree on the basic hygienic issue regarding pouring unconsumed communion wine / juice back into the container. [Eek!]
Why fight? Imagine this:
You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book. What you find is the following:
Worship Time (lots of songs, trad and contemp)
Sermon Time
Communion Time (no consecration, no words, just passing bread and wine around)
Nothing more than that. Now, imagine you decide that this is simply not what you're looking for. You wish them well, make empty promises about coming back sometime, and you make your way to a succession of other churches, journeying farther and farther away, to the point of sixty minute one-way trips.
You know that you believe Christ is truly present in the Holy Sacrament. What does that take? You think it out, and come to the conclusion that you have only your Church of England formation (from your old church) to go by, and frankly, none of the local churches fits the bill.
/End Scene
Why does it matter? You have consciously chosen to remain Anglican. You have a commitment to what the church is, as a whole, but the local congregations do not attain to that.
Now for my situation: in Lutheranism, there is always a strong pull to simplify. It's almost an ingrained embarrassment of following a liturgical text. This does not afflict the whole country, but it is unfortunately quite prevalent where I live. If I belong to a local congregation that represents that denomination, as a whole, and yet is always tending towards Local Practice, I am going to do what I can to help keep things more attuned to who we are as a whole, rather than who the local pastor wants us to be.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
My little connection has few Rules but lots of Guidelines. Some ministers like liturgy, some don't.
I fought the battle by becoming Worship Elder. And then co-operating with the minster to improve the services. Eventually he joined in of his own volition. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Anyway, my church does Average Family-oriented Hymn Sandwich Protestant. The minister is a good preacher and we have a nice Sunday school. The hymns are traditional. It's church like people remember church, and that's our thing. And people like sacraments to feel like sacraments, it's holy and special. Our revised baptism service is a "Go Big" service, but when you have the extended family there, what else are you going to do?
I may have a greater tolerance than most here for off-lectionary readings, personal liturgy revisions and the like but as I said to our minister, liturgy also is there to keep us from saying unfortunate (heretical) things in sacraments. It is applied doctrine.
That actually went over well. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
SPK, I too have found that diplomacy often accomplishes quite a bit. I can assure you that I am quite levelheaded and diplomatic, and that I compromise regularly, despite the image that the thread title may convey.
I do grow weary of defending things that have been considered normative for Lutherans since the very beginning, such as the reading of the Gospel at the Sunday morning Holy Communion. I certainly refuse to be branded a wacky liturgical oddball for defending such a thing.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
You generally do not think of it as being a problem but the present generation of clergy, or those ordained 10 years ago, I am not sure which, do want to dump part of our rich liturgical heritage. The usual victims are Morning Prayer, the Litany, and Evening Prayer. The Communion service is safe, provided I can keep the additions to what the rubrics provde for, but the daily Office tradition has to be fought for these days.
I imagine I piss off my clergy no end by insisting that they use Morning and Evening Prayer on a regular basis, but my campaign has met with some success. From one parish doing MP and EP with some regularity, we not have three, and that's without my exercising my episcopal prerogative and issuing 'instructions.'
I feel for you, Olaf, because your church has a rich tradition which a lot of Lutheran Pastors seem to be intent on dumping just at the point at which Evangelical Catholicism is becoming important again. The future church is going to be a lot smaller, tighter, and more focussed than what we have seen in the dying throws of "Christian America" (TM).
PD
[ 15. July 2013, 06:02: Message edited by: 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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
in Lutheranism, there is always a strong pull to simplify. It's almost an ingrained embarrassment of following a liturgical text. This does not afflict the whole country, but it is unfortunately quite prevalent where I live. If I belong to a local congregation that represents that denomination, as a whole, and yet is always tending towards Local Practice, I am going to do what I can to help keep things more attuned to who we are as a whole, rather than who the local pastor wants us to be.
Olaf, thanks for your gracious response to what were, let's be honest, somewhat snarky questions. I still don't 'get' it, in the sense of grasping fully why you care so much about these things, but I understand your situation better now. So, thank you.
On the specific points I've quoted, I guess I personally see 'keep[ing] things more attuned to who we are as a whole' in terms of the spirit of how things are done, rather than the precise details. So, for me, if I were trying to find a church similar to the one I'm currently part of, I'd look for similar attitudes (like everyone having opportunity to contribute, 'worship' being understood in a much broader sense than just meaning singing songs to God) more than I'd look for similar procedures / practices. Hope that makes sense...
--------------------
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
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Once a year our Presbyterian congregation are the guests of our Anglican neighbours – we exchange visits to fit in with clergy summer holidays. For two years in a row the vicar elected to make it the occasion for a cafe-style 'liturgy' in the hall. A tactful word to a vestry friend ensured that next time we got a recognisable Anglican liturgy in the church. We do appreciate the occasional more formal attraction of the now familiar ritual.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I do grow weary of defending things that have been considered normative for Lutherans since the very beginning, such as the reading of the Gospel at the Sunday morning Holy Communion. I certainly refuse to be branded a wacky liturgical oddball for defending such a thing.
Are there no allies you can call on for support?
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
SPK, I too have found that diplomacy often accomplishes quite a bit. I can assure you that I am quite levelheaded and diplomatic, and that I compromise regularly, despite the image that the thread title may convey.
I do grow weary of defending things that have been considered normative for Lutherans since the very beginning, such as the reading of the Gospel at the Sunday morning Holy Communion. I certainly refuse to be branded a wacky liturgical oddball for defending such a thing.
Even we have the Gospel reading at the Eucharist.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
The Liturgical War - bloody, but beautifully choreographed.
But seriously, folks... I've been doing a lot of reading recently about the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk, the "total work of art". The concept is central to Wagner's ideas about how his operas were to work. Gesamtkunstwerk is the co-ordination of every kind of artistic endeavour that can go into, say, the production of an opera - not only music but poetry, stagecraft, dance, scene-building, lighting and so on. If any one of these were neglected, the Gesamtkunstwerk would not be achieved.
My view of liturgy is very similar. Liturgy is not just words in a book, or a didactic lecture posing as a sermon. Liturgy involves music, prose, poetry, movement, and even architecture and design. Like Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk it's also proletarian (an aspect he never really achieved) in that the people are not an audience, but are an integral part of the action.
To me, every one of these aspects is essential. If I'm guest-presiding at a church and I'm told they don't elevate the Communion elements, it gives me an itch between my shoulder-blades - because to me the action is as essential as the words. Normally I would no more think about not elevating than I would about leaving out a paragraph of the eucharistic prayer because it suited me.
I'm not saying there's only one right way to do a liturgy (any more than there's only one right way to stage an opera): each community should have the liturgy that is natural and proper to it. I think, for me, it's tinkering with the liturgy that gets me donning the armour for the Liturgical War. Constantly messing about with the details of the liturgy is like thinking it would be a good idea to rewrite Shakespeare's sonnets as limericks.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk, which is a crucially important one in opera--and the reason why supertitles are a bad thing--seems to me to be of central importance here. The liturgy takes place on multiple staves, with different instruments working out, by the grace of God, a full depth of meaning.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Anglo Catholic
Shipmate
# 15181
|
Posted
There are strange things afoot in many places!
I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
Now I might well just be a stuffy old coot, but I take the vows of obedience I have taken quite seriously. The Declaration of Assent is very clear and provides
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.
Now that is very straightforward isn't it?
It means, inter alia, I suggest that unless otherwise authorised, I must use the forms of service approved by the Church, not confected by me at my whim.
I'm obedient because I promised to be, and if the congregation can't trust my word in this, what can they trust?
I try to do what is right, because I'm not much of an example if I don't.
Is it a fight? I'm not sure, but personal integrity, provided that it is balanced with charity and humour, is essential in my opinion, so struggle on, keep smiling and best of luck!
Posts: 144 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
It's very important that we get liturgy right, after all, it is the prayer of the Church which contains the faith of the Church. In the liturgy Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. It is also important that a priest, deacon, acolyte etc. follow the rubrics. The rubrics are there so that the liturgy can be served with dignity without thew priest being able to impose his own personality on it.
Fight the good fight.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I suspect that what is going on is a manifestation of modern society to turn life into a spectator sport. The biggest churches around here tend to put on a moderately good Christian themed show on Sunday mornings at 9am and 11am, have Starbucks in the lobby, and cup holders on the pews - erm - seats. However, the "liturgy" is such that the people are not really involved except as spectators.
I suspect that in the case of American Lutheranism, the assimilationist streak in the culture is at work. In the 19th C. this tended to manifest itself in an abridgement of the Liturgy to make it more protestant, black gowns, special music, and a general tendancy to try and partly assimilate Lutheranism into Anglo-Saxon Evangelical culture. However, repeated waves of immigrants tended to slow this slide towards Methobaptigational norms. This was followed by a fairly static period 1900-1950, and a successful push back between 1950 and 1990, but the tide seems to be running the other way again. Hopefully, as the dechristianization of America culture, which has been underway since the 1960s really begins to bite, there will be a push back against assimilationism once more.
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
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Are there no allies you can call on for support?
Yes, the majority of the congregation, whom I have known for decades and with whom I have had many liturgical chats over the years. I can even name favorite hymns for many.
That said, I choose not to go about it this way. Typically it's easier to 'win a battle' if it is done on a one-on-one basis. I don't want to create a big gang-up situation. (Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind, were a heretical issue to arise.)
quote:
PD:
...the tide seems to be running the other way again.
Good summary of the state of affairs for the past century or so. The tide indeed is running the other way again. One never knows what one will encounter when visiting an ELCA place, and for this reason I tend not to visit ELCA places when I'm out of the area. The oddest oddball liturgical eccentricities rear their ugly heads.
My 'favorite': the 'contemporary' service that was supposed to draw in the youth and unchurched, held at the prime Sunday morning time which attracts about 1/20th the attendance of the 'traditional' service. Give it up, people. Your folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy appeals to no one, and you don't have adequate musical support for your 'contemporary' (to the mid-1980s, anyway) music.
In which Olaf vents to no one in particular:
Just say the black, and do the red, people!
Yearn for change? Work at a bank.
[ 16. July 2013, 23:01: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!
I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
*snip*
A wicked and flippant deacon would copy out one of the authorized texts, word for word, and present it as their own creation, based on prayer, diligent study of scripture, and an enthusiastic embrace of the diverse cultures of the country.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
My 'favorite': the 'contemporary' service that was supposed to draw in the youth and unchurched, held at the prime Sunday morning time which attracts about 1/20th the attendance of the 'traditional' service. Give it up, people. Your folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy appeals to no one, and you don't have adequate musical support for your 'contemporary' (to the mid-1980s, anyway) music.
At least they were trying to reach the unchurched... In my (fairly limited) experience and from what I've read, people with no background in Christian faith generally find most of the ways we 'do' church utterly alien and irrelevant. The 'folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy' and more contemporary music are ways of trying to make what we do on Sunday when we gather together a bit more relevant and appealing (I don't think that's a bad thing!) to those who don't know the first thing about the Christian faith.
Mind you, my personal view is that something more radical is needed, but at least Olaf's people were acknowledging that some of our ways and practices are off-putting to unchurched people, and were trying to do something about that. Let's celebrate that, not decry it. (I know there's a problem here for some more liturgically-inclined people and churches - if you think there are certain ways we must do things when we gather as church then how relevant unchurched people find those ways is, well, not relevant!)
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mind you, my personal view is that something more radical is needed, but at least Olaf's people were acknowledging that some of our ways and practices are off-putting to unchurched people, and were trying to do something about that. Let's celebrate that, not decry it. (I know there's a problem here for some more liturgically-inclined people and churches - if you think there are certain ways we must do things when we gather as church then how relevant unchurched people find those ways is, well, not relevant!)
That's not how you make disciples though, that is by trying to make the prayer of the Church more "relevant" (whatever that's supposed to mean). The prayer of the Church is really only meant for those who already believe. Disciples are made by loving God and your neighbour as yourself.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
At least they were trying to reach the unchurched... In my (fairly limited) experience and from what I've read, people with no background in Christian faith generally find most of the ways we 'do' church utterly alien and irrelevant. The 'folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy' and more contemporary music are ways of trying to make what we do on Sunday when we gather together a bit more relevant and appealing (I don't think that's a bad thing!) to those who don't know the first thing about the Christian faith.
As it happens, it was the liturgy that drew me to faith. I had had a couple of friends take me to services more along the "folksy, contemporary music" lines, and they just seemed silly. (I'm not decrying the way that these people prefer to worship - these were the impressions my unchurched, rather agnostic self had.)
And then I got taken along to a fairly Anglo-Catholic place - smells, bells, genuflecting and liturgy to the max, and something stuck. Here were these ordinary, normal people with ordinary normal jobs doing these odd things - they must actually mean it. And I kept going back.
Leo, professional oddball.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Sorry AO, I don't understand your point... If people are reluctant to come to our services and join in with our praising of God because the way we do things is alien and irrelevant to them, isn't that quite a big problem? I think, unless we're of the opinion that our worship practices simply must not be amended at a local level, then we should think about how to make what we do more relevant and appealing to those with no knowledge or experience of Christianity. (Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And then I got taken along to a fairly Anglo-Catholic place - smells, bells, genuflecting and liturgy to the max, and something stuck. Here were these ordinary, normal people with ordinary normal jobs doing these odd things - they must actually mean it. And I kept going back.
That's great! I'm pretty confident that you're in a minority but good for you, and praise the Lord that you came to faith in Him through high liturgy. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QB] Sorry AO, I don't understand your point... If people are reluctant to come to our services and join in with our praising of God because the way we do things is alien and irrelevant to them, isn't that quite a big problem? I think, unless we're of the opinion that our worship practices simply must not be amended at a local level, then we should think about how to make what we do more relevant and appealing to those with no knowledge or experience of Christianity. (Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)
What I'm saying is that your starting point is completely wrong. You won't make disciples by making your worship more "relevant" (again, whatever that's supposed to mean). One makes disciples by going out and loving God and your neighbour as yourself (the Commandments). Then comes a period of catechesis which includes liturgical formation.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What I'm saying is that your starting point is completely wrong. You won't make disciples by making your worship more "relevant" (again, whatever that's supposed to mean). One makes disciples by going out and loving God and your neighbour as yourself (the Commandments). Then comes a period of catechesis which includes liturgical formation.
Ah, okay; thanks. I guess I'm not thinking of making worship more 'relevant' as a disciple-making thing, certainly not by itself. It's more about inviting people in to the church community where the disciple-making can then happen.
What I mean by 'making worship more relevant' is things like: using contemporary language in our church services, using at least some contemporary music, explaining how (and why!) we do the various things in the service (and not being disapproving or judgemental when people do the 'wrong' thing, liturgically-speaking), teaching in ways that reflect current educational research (e.g. as opposed to always having a monologue sermon). Others will mean different things when they use the word 'relevant' in a church context, but that's a flavour of what I'm getting at.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Authenticity. "Folksy" (whatever that means), contemporary etc. etc. worship will always seem silly and cheesy if it's not an authentic expression of the people doing it.
The question is not "what forms will bring people in to our church", because the answer is "none"; the people outside the church don't know what you're doing and they're unlikely to read your pew leaflet/notice board/website and find out. It's more "is what we are doing an authentic expression of worship for us?"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Ad Orientum, I think your view of mission is correct.
However, I'm not entirely convinced that it's logical to insist that disciples made in the way you suggest must needs be added to a church whose liturgy is trapped in amber.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think this is the key to it irrespective of what tradition we come from or style of worship we favour:
'And then I got taken along to a [add church of style of worship service] and something stuck. Here were these ordinary, normal people with ordinary normal jobs doing these odd things - they must actually mean it. And I kept going back.'
This can apply anyway and everywhere and also may not apply in each instance too ... but the key is authenticity.
I would agree with Ad Orientem that there is something about liturgical formation being part of the catechetical process. That applies everywhere.
People are socialised into these things.
I didn't take to worship songs and choruses immediately when I first encountered charismatic worship - for instance - still less the 'speaking in tongues' and the dancing and waving of arms and so on. But I stuck with it and became acclimatised to it.
The same thing applies with more traditional and liturgical forms of worship.
I would agree that the Orthodox have much to learn from other churches on how to explain things - although a kind of 'stop-start' commentary would break the flow of Orthodox Liturgical worship. What I've seen, though, is that in some jurisdictions at least they use Power-Point, small-group discussions and so on in conferences and seminars - but don't go in for any of that when it comes to the worship itself.
I'm completely of the view that worship should be conducted in a 'language understanded of the people' but I'm not entirely convinced that contemporary tunes and arrangements are always the way forward.
This is a hobby-horse of mine, but I am increasingly convinced that the parlous state of much charismatic evangelical catechesis where people who ought to know better have a very sketchy grasp at best of the wider tradition and the great Christological and Trinitarian formularies is down to the dumbing down of the diet in terms of worship and liturgy.
You can't come away from an Orthodox service in English without realising that these people worship Christ as God, the Holy Spirit as God and God the Father as God - One God in Three Persons, One in Essence and Undivided.
You could easily be forgiven for not getting that impression down at your local charismatic church or even Anglican parish ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Rather depends how one views the liturgy, I suppose. When considering the ancient liturgies, for instance, such as the Byzantine or old Roman, I would view them as being essentially equal to scripture. Just my view, of course, though you'll see similar views by St. Gregory the Great, for instance.
I understand the original poster is a Lutheran. I live in a country which is about 80% Lutheran and I was myself baptised as an infant into the Lutheran Church. Maybe I was lucky but in my experience I never witnessed much innovation. Everything was more or less by the book.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I've come across the Orthodox idea that the Liturgy is pneumatic and itself a conveyor of spiritual truth in a similar way to the scriptures ... indeed the whole kit and kaboodle is part of the 'seamless robe' of Tradition.
So iconography, Liturgy, the scriptures, ritual, church architecture, chant and everything else works together as a seamless whole ...
I quite like that idea, to be honest.
I suspect it's there to a less 'realised' extent in some of the other traditions. Certainly some elements within Anglicanism would take a similar approach.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)
But for many Christians, especially the Orthodox of whom I believe AO is one, the liturgy is part of the Christian message.
The Gospel doesn't exist in a box which we can market in different ways and wrap up in stylish modern graphics or antique brocade as it takes our fancy. The Gospel is communicated through the way ordinary Christians live and worship. So I'm not saying everyone should worship in AO's preferred style, or according to Common Worship, or whatever - just that worship must have integrity and be part and parcel of a particular Christian culture.
--------------------
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
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Regarding Olaf's comments on "contemporary" Lutheran services, we started offering a contemporary service a decade ago and it was supposed to draw young people and the unchurched. All it really did was cannibalize attendance at the traditional services because it was shorter and held at more convenient times. It also introduced a dumbed-down liturgy (WOV) and some really poor hymns.
One cannot underestimate the influence of Lutheran Pietism on liturgical practices in the 19th cent. and 20th cent. through about 1950ish. The publication of the SBH tried to revive traditional Western liturgical practice. It also seems that seminaries, at least here in the East, have produced a generation of clergy far more attuned to traditional liturgical practice that in the past.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)
But for many Christians, especially the Orthodox of whom I believe AO is one, the liturgy is part of the Christian message.
Sure, that's fair enough. For those who view their liturgy in that way, changing the liturgy is obviously problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Gospel doesn't exist in a box which we can market in different ways and wrap up in stylish modern graphics or antique brocade as it takes our fancy. The Gospel is communicated through the way ordinary Christians live and worship. So I'm not saying everyone should worship in AO's preferred style, or according to Common Worship, or whatever - just that worship must have integrity and be part and parcel of a particular Christian culture.
I don't understand what you're getting at, apologies! Take for example a church that mainly uses songs written in the last ten years and either doesn't use liturgy or has written its own. Are you saying such a church would be lacking integrity, and would be treating the gospel like it 'exist[s] in a box which we can market in different ways'?
I think Karl:Liberal Backslider had it right a few posts ago; however we 'do' church, it must be with authenticity, reflecting the gifts and culture of the people who comprise that church (while still, I'd say - and maybe Karl would too, I'm not sure - being accessible to newcomers, especially those with no heritage of Christian faith).
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
[...]Why fight? Imagine this:
You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book. What you find is the following:
Worship Time (lots of songs, trad and contemp)
Sermon Time
Communion Time (no consecration, no words, just passing bread and wine around)
Nothing more than that. Now, imagine you decide that this is simply not what you're looking for. You wish them well, make empty promises about coming back sometime, and you make your way to a succession of other churches, journeying farther and farther away, to the point of sixty minute one-way trips.
You know that you believe Christ is truly present in the Holy Sacrament. What does that take? You think it out, and come to the conclusion that you have only your Church of England formation (from your old church) to go by, and frankly, none of the local churches fits the bill.
But imagine this:
You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book. What you find is the following:
- Only three hymns, and only one of them you recognise, and that an almost unsingable bit of early 20th century pseudo-mediaeval tosh
- All sorts of processions and odd rituals with incense and candles and crucifixes and fancy copies of the Bible performed by a gang of blokes dressed up in robes, which you are expected to sit quietly and watch even though you haven't the slightest idea what is supposed to be going on.
- Large chunks of the liturgy missing, and even larger ones changed for what you suspect might be a Roman catholic version
- Quite a lot of the liturgy that you do recognise chanted by a choir or cantor while everyone else sits still and doesn't join in
- People in the pews bobbing up and down, crossing themselves, turning round at various points, in ways that you don't understand and couldn't join in with because you have no idea what they are doing or why they are doing it.
- no real sermon, just five minutes of moralising "Thought for the Day" style chat (and apart from that little homily no words directly addressed to you at all)
- the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in Latin, for some unexplained reason
- a liturgy of the sacrament that goes on for half an hour performed by three blokes dressed up in weird robes mumbling words you hardly recognise when you are lucky enough to be able to hear them at all.
- Communion being little tasteless wafers and something like sweet sherry rather than ordinary bread and wine
- and at the end, quite unprompted, everyone turns round to face sideways and recites what seems to be a poem about Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Most of it makes no sense to you, and the bits that do seem to be superstitious heresy.
Nothing more than that. Now, imagine you decide that this is simply not what you're looking for. You wish them well, make empty promises about coming back sometime, and you make your way to a succession of other churches, journeying farther and farther away, to the point of sixty minute one-way trips. Most Sunday mornings leave you feeling confused, ignored, and bored.
You know that you believe Christ is truly present in the prayers and praises of his people. What does that take? You think it out, and come to the conclusion that you have only your Church of England formation (from your old church) to go by, and frankly, none of the local Anglican churches fits the bill. So you sneak off to a Baptist church where the preaching is from the Bible and auimed at you, and where you get a chance to participate in worhsip that makes sense to you (while feeling slightly guilty because you miss proper Holy Communion, and you don't really agree with them about baptism.)
That's pretty much what a lot of Anglicanism in South London or in Brighton would look like to most Anglicans who turned up unprepared, MOTR ones never mind evangelicals. I don't mind it myself, but then I've now had a few decades to get used to it. To newcomers to the area (or to the CofE from other Protestant churches) it can seem very weird and cliquey and off-putting. OK I exaggerate a little. There will be very few churches that do all ten of the things I listed there. But none of them is made-up - they all happen at churches within walking distance of me. And at least one local church has eight of them, and quite a few five or six.
So should we keep on fighting for authorised liturgy, congregational participation, hymns and songs that talk about Jesus Christ, language "understanded of the people", real bread and wine, sermons with some meat in them and based on the Word of God and addressed to the situation of the congregation, rather than what we all too often get?
[ 17. July 2013, 17:52: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Ken, I don't like "real" bread, 'cos I don't care to have to genuflect to the church's Hoover.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChippedChalice
Shipmate
# 14057
|
Posted
All of this discussion seems to me a perfect illustration of the old Latin maxim de gustibus non disputandum est.
Some people like more informal "folksy" worship and find that an effective evangelism tool.
Others, like me, prefer more formal worship, including smells, bells, chants, etc. -- and for them, THAT is they way to spread the kingdom.
I think the trick is try to do well whichever form most appeals to you. (And for not everyone in the neighborhood to try the same style.)
And, of course, to not think your own preferred liturgical style as heaven-mandated.
(Quick clarification: I DO think some liturgical matters ARE heaven-mandated -- the use of water and the name of the Trinity in Baptism, for example.)
Posts: 131 | From: Chicago | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Olaf and I have commiserated before on threads like this. The problem with Lutheran Liturgy is that though we have had gifted teachers and liturgists to guide us, it is NOT the glue that holds the church together as it is in other traditions. While our Episcopal Neighbors have the Book of Common Prayer, we have only a congregation's desire to purchase and use the latest worship book our church puts forth. Within the ELCA today you can find congregations using the Evangelical Lutheran Worship(2006), Lutheran Book of Worship (1978), Service Book and Hymnal (1958) some variety of Lutheran Worship, published by the Missouri Synod in 1980, or their new Lutheran Service Book, published just a few years ago. Or other kinds of hymnals, Song Books, or Texts at the congregation's (or their pastor's) pleasure.
At our place our predecessor gave the congregation a chanted liturgy by the book (LBW)
with Communion twice a month and ante-communion on the other weeks. We now celebrate Holy Communion every week using a chanted. liturgy by the book (ELW) Together we represent over 25 years of a decent liturgical tradition. But the next pastor may throw it all out the window and do something different. I would say, to add misery to Olaf's OP, that we are in a time of liturgical de-evolution. The mandated change in the RC liturgical books also did not help because now common texts have been lost.
And we haven't even touched on lectionary texts. Many congregations in the ELCA are following something called "The Narrative Lectionary" which is a complete abandonment of the 3-year lectionary. Others are using the Revised Common Lectionary, still others are using the original Lutheran version of the 3-year lectionary, which conforms more closely to the Roman Catholic version.
For me, I make it my discipline to do the Liturgy as best as I know how to do it, and to let the future be in God's hands. I should say also that because we have so many former RC's in our congregation, the majority of our people are quite satisfied with the liturgy as we do it.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Olaf and I have commiserated before on threads like this. The problem with Lutheran Liturgy is that though we have had gifted teachers and liturgists to guide us, it is NOT the glue that holds the church together as it is in other traditions.
If this isn't too much of a tangent: what is? This is intended, I should say, as an appreciative and inquisitive question, not argumentatively. Would a Confession work for this?
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf and ken:
You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book.
Ken: I sympathise with your list. Pendulums swing, and I think they have swung too far yet again. (Well I would, wouldn't I, being Anglican?).
Imagine this.
It is 1950 or maybe earlier. You are Anglican, and you walk into the local Anglican church where instead of Mattins from the Book of Common Prayer, with chanted psalms and long readings and an interminable sermon by the Vicar, you find something that you had been led to believe was Roman Catholic. Priest in strange vestments, grey scented smoke virtually hiding him from view, unfamiliar chants and some ceremony which you think might have something to do with the unfamiliar practice of Holy Communion, which you have only rarely experienced and seemed very different from this. There are copies of the BCP in the pews but the liturgy as performed is impossible to follow in it. Or you enter another church where Morning Prayer is advertised, and it is superficially similar to the Mattins you know, but there are lots of unfamiliar choruses and the vicar, instead of preaching sedately from the pulpit, walks up and down the aisles issuing a personal challenge to each and every person present. You feel equally uncomfortable but in a different way.
Fast forward to the mid-1970s. Church A will have Parish Communion as the main service; the rite will follow the green booklets almost word for word, the vicar will wear a chasuble and there may be robed assistants at the altar. You go to church B and although the noticeboard says 'Sung Mass', what you get is recognisably the same thing: there is a bit more colour and movement in the sanctuary and lots of incense, but you can follow the liturgy in the same green book and receive communion in the way you are accustomed. Or you go to church C and although ceremonial is mostly noted for its absence, and some people raise their hands during the (still unfamiliar) choruses or pray at length and extempore during the intercessions, it is still the same Communion service from the same green booklet.
Now you might go to A and find that they have abandoned Parish Communion on one Sunday a month for an All-Age Family Service, which follows no liturgy that you are familiar with, and you are denied the opportunity of communion. Or you go to B and even if the service follows the authorised rite of Common Worship it is a very idiosyncratic version thereof, with much borrowing from the Roman Catholics (or, they might even be using the new RC translation which means even the words of the Gloria or Creed are no longer recognisable). Or, you might go to C and literally anything goes (the noticeboard will probably say Morning Worship with no indication of when if ever Communion is celebrated)
I would just want to scream and pray for a Tardis to take me back to the church of my youth, or at least a long-distance flight to somewhere (anywhere) in TEC.
--------------------
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
But why should we expect things to be completely predictable when we drop in on a service of a church we're not familiar with? I don't have this expectation at all...
I quite like visiting distant friends or being on holiday and going to an unfamiliar church service - in fact, I should probably do it more often - as it shows me God can be praised and faith can be expressed in many different ways.
--------------------
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
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
Hart asks about the glue that holds the church together for Lutherans. I would have to say that the short answer is the correct preaching of the Gospel, and the longer answer would be the Augsburg Confession.
In all Lutheran Worship the Sermon is primary. The basic reformation idea of justification by grace through faith is presented through the particular scriptural lessons of the day. That grace can not be merited, earned, or in any way gained by us, except for the sheer goodness of God. And that a suitable response to God's grace is repentance and thanksgiving.
The longer answer is the Augsburg Confession which sets out a Lutheran understanding of faith and church in an irenic way, as an attempt to prevent church division. In its articles both convergence and disagreement with the medieval Catholic church are presented. Sacraments are defined and specified, but already in the 16th century various church orders presented forms for worship, most of which were based on a reform of the Roman mass of the time.
This, at least, is a beginning of an answer to Hart's question.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The fact is, though, South Coast Kevin, I find most church services of whatever stripe fairly predictable. I bet if I rolled up at a Vineyard service I'd pretty much be able to second-guess what was going to happen.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But why should we expect things to be completely predictable when we drop in on a service of a church we're not familiar with? I don't have this expectation at all...
If I dropped into your church I would expect something I wasn't familiar with. If I dropped into an Orthodox church it would be different again. But if I was brought up as an Anglican expecting that Sunday worship included Word and Sacrament it's hard when you find half the menu is missing. Style and presentation are another matter.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm put in mind of the Brethren who used to say that their services were 'led by the Spirit' but which were in fact, virtually identical week by week ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
But the next pastor may throw it all out the window and do something different.
That pretty much sums it up!
I would argue that a worshipping community should worship in the manner that best suits them (not the pastor alone, or anybody's contrived vision of what people who don't come might want. ) However, do well what you have chosen to do. In other words, just use the book.
Then help to make it accessible to visitors.
Also, lest there be any confusion, I am not opposed to happy-clappy, folksy, or contemporary. I am opposed to poorly-done versions of them, which seems to be commonplace. (e.g. doctrinal errors in self-composed materials, creating oddball orders that are even more confusing than the normal order. Yes, I'm also opposed to poorly-done trad.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact is, though, South Coast Kevin, I find most church services of whatever stripe fairly predictable. I bet if I rolled up at a Vineyard service I'd pretty much be able to second-guess what was going to happen.
Be fair, I did say 'completely predictable'!
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If I dropped into your church I would expect something I wasn't familiar with. If I dropped into an Orthodox church it would be different again. But if I was brought up as an Anglican expecting that Sunday worship included Word and Sacrament it's hard when you find half the menu is missing. Style and presentation are another matter.
Understood. But from some of the comments (and from the exchange that prompted Olaf to start this thread), some folks are upset or disappointed when what seem to me like utter minutiae of the church service 'package' are not done according to their preferences. I certainly appreciate that a service lacking communion will seem incomplete if one is used to sharing bread and wine at each gathering of the church!
--------------------
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
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The dear old C of E lost most of my family in the change over from MP to Parish Communion. Not that we were great churchgoers to start with, but Communion every week was a powerful and highly effective dissuasive, especiall went coupled to the decline of Evensong at the same time.
I only survived because I was the youngest and was the least set in my ways. I got cranky when they started trying to get rid of proper hymns (TM) in favour of silly-songs-about-God.
The other totally hopeless situation for me are those Anglo-Catholic parishes which remain locked in a 1950s timewarp. We have a lot of them in the Continuum, and from my point of view they are all equally dire. The ones that have accomodated themselves a little to liturgical reform actually do a good job, but the movement seems to be dominated by the RadTrads who seem to be intent on erecting their own particular liturgical Brigadoon.
All of which proves that significant change, frequent change, and no change at all are all about equally effective at emptying churches.
PD
[ 17. July 2013, 23:39: Message edited by: 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, that is an issue ...
I do wonder about the Orthodox growth, though, in recent years ... not changing anything at all hasn't prevented them from picking up fellow-travellers.
Whilst the outward form of the Liturgy hasn't changed for a millenium+, the melodies - such as they are - have changed apparently even in comparatively recent times.
I suspect there's something symbiotic going on here. Would they have picked up so many converts and refugees from Western forms of Christianity if there hadn't been the liturgical changes of Vatican II on the one hand or the steady and remorseless dumbing down of Protestant worship on the other?
I suspect that if you plonked an Orthodox parish in the middle of a relatively unchurched area you wouldn't see a great deal of growth at all. The only reason that they can and do grow is because there are existing vestiges of small-o orthodoxy that they can draw on.
I might be wrong about that.
I'm not saying it's impossible for people of an unchurched background to find their way into Orthodoxy - it does happen and I've met people who have - but unless you have some basic idea of the structure of the Liturgy and what it's all about then you'd be absolutely lost if you simply wandered into one of their services.
That said, I still maintain that all of us are socialised and acclimatised into the Kingdom, at whatever point and in whatever setting we enter it.
I'm always struck here, for instance, how visitors and guests for baptisms and so on often comment on how 'lively' and 'welcoming' our local parish is and I hear second and third-hand comments filtering back through various sources that they liked the contemporary style of the music and so on ... yet that doesn't mean that you see them queueing up outside the following Sunday.
And, by the same token, I hear second and third-hand reports filtering back from some quarters as to how naff and cheesy it all is and how the vicar doesn't even wear a proper gown and it must be some kind of cult and ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Uffda, My notes for the next Worship & Music Committee indicate we'll be discussing a Narrative lectionary. Can you explain an give details.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
ORGANMEISTER: I don't know a lot about it, since I'm not interested in using it, but it comes out of Luther seminary, and it purports to open up more of the narrative of the Old Testament. There's a lot of interest in it on the ELCA clergy facebook page. Of course for me the biggest drawback is the loss of the ecumenical 3 year lectionary for something idiosyncratic. I bet if you typed Narrative Lectionary into a search engine you'd track it to it's source. But apparently there are many Elca churches using it.
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
uffda
Shipmate
# 14310
|
Posted
ORGANMEISTER: This is what you want!
--------------------
Invincibly ignorant and planning to stay that way!
Posts: 1031 | From: Buffalo, NY | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Gamaliel writes: quote:
I suspect that if you plonked an Orthodox parish in the middle of a relatively unchurched area you wouldn't see a great deal of growth at all. The only reason that they can and do grow is because there are existing vestiges of small-o orthodoxy that they can draw on.
I might be wrong about that.
I'm not saying it's impossible for people of an unchurched background to find their way into Orthodoxy - it does happen and I've met people who have - but unless you have some basic idea of the structure of the Liturgy and what it's all about then you'd be absolutely lost if you simply wandered into one of their services.
I think in a long-gone thread, I described a discussion I had with a woman with no religious background whatsoever who had ended up with the Orthies (OCA and, for geographical rasons, later with the Antiochians) and she told me that she had become Xn on account of the example of two friends of hers, and of the local OCA priest's work with some very homeless people. She had no idea what to make of the services aside from the music being very interesting, but figured that if they were connected with what had drawn her in, that this was just fine. While it was all very odd, so was the society around her and in an unhealthy way.
She's been with them for the past ten years and is still working on the services. She has been to other churches in the interim and feels that she would have had more trouble developing trust in churches were personalities were more important.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
