|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Criticising Quiet, Respectable Churches?
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Svitlana2, referencing your reply to my post. Absolutely. I understand your use of the terminology, and that's fine. It opens up the discussion in the Op very well.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.
There are plenty of charismatic-lite churches in the UK (and elsewhere) for which this is the case (including many Restorationists, and some of churches of previous movements like Vineyard, Icthus etc).
In those churches, visible usage of gifts is usually relegated to the prayer meeting, personal use of tongues during corporate worship and maybe the odd speaker with a prophetic ministry.
Which kind of makes sense in many ways - even enthusiasts find it hard to keep up the levels of energy required.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On the OP, I like to think I've been as cynical, unfair and mean to quiet respectable churches as I have to the various One True Churches and the up in the air junior birdman shacks.
Now, that reminds me of something: Fresh Expressions. 'FEs of church' seem to be a mainstream rather than an evangelical form of intentional evangelistic activity, and that makes them interesting. But although we're often told that FEs are officially a 'good thing', it's much rarer for us hear from a layperson about how important their involvement with a FE of church has been to them. It's good that you're here to bring that perspective!
Well, I was posting with my 'miserable git' hat on rather than my 'Goes to a FE' hat. Interestingly, FEs are overseen by Graham Cray, who is an evengelical, albeit of a relatively liberal bent. Mine at any rate has a reasonable crop of ex-evangelicals.
I've been trying to analyse why the FE setup we attend works for us. I'll come back with some ideas.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.
There are plenty of charismatic-lite churches in the UK (and elsewhere) for which this is the case (including many Restorationists, and some of churches of previous movements like Vineyard, Icthus etc).
In those churches, visible usage of gifts is usually relegated to the prayer meeting, personal use of tongues during corporate worship and maybe the odd speaker with a prophetic ministry.
Which kind of makes sense in many ways - even enthusiasts find it hard to keep up the levels of energy required.
"Energy required"? It takes as much or as little energy to speak in tongues as it does in your native language. Likewise prophecy. Ultimately it's just talking, like prayer, or preaching.
Lively and loud worship songs, with optional clapping and even dancing, on the other hand do require more energy. Oddly they're the things that "charismatic-lite" churches tend to keep when downplaying the other stuff.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
"Energy required"? It takes as much or as little energy to speak in tongues as it does in your native language. Likewise prophecy. Ultimately it's just talking, like prayer, or preaching.
You are discounting the build up required for such things to gain credibility in a corporate worship setting.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The CofE's Church Growth Research Programme of 2012/13 finds that theological tradition isn't a key factor in church growth. (See the end of the report.)
Except that the churches of non-evangelical stripes who are growing are generally less geographically distributed than evangelical churches. If you do the analysis numerically then the differences are even starker.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
I don't think that qualifies as a criterion, as the Eucharist is not the centre of worship in some Nonconformist traditions. Sorry.
I didn't realise I was meant to be coming up with a list that would work for every MOTR congregation everywhere, ever. I'm speaking from my experience as a MOTR to Anglo-Catholic Anglican.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
For me personally - it's the shock and surprise of the Gospel that keeps me a Christian, but it's not what keeps me in a church. That would be connection and community (and also things that I value theologically such as the centrality of the Eucharist - but that's irrelevant if I don't want to be in that church because of the lack of community).
I think whether people fit into a church is more about personality that whether there are guitars and drums - I know that I as an INFJ and the rarest type find it a bit more difficult.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
burlingtontiger
Apprentice
# 18069
|
Posted
I'm interested in Christianity but not convinced, or at least, not yet convinced. I am trying (for a third time) regular attendance at my local Evangelical church, and enjoying it. Being a low church set-up, the only obvious division between believers and other attendees comes at the communion service.
Earlier this year I did try going to my local Church of England church on a couple of occasions. The 12th century(former) Priory is beautiful but generally cold. A congregation of, maybe, one hundred is rather rattling around in such a big building. The wooden pews are hard but I guess that no other seating would look right. The PA system is a bit hit and miss - cutting out now and again. The hymns are a tad old fashioned. The vestments are pretty but help to make a distinction between the clergy/choir etc. and the congregation. The processional cross is dramatic but, as an outsider, seemed more like a pagan talisman. What really didn't appeal to me was the liturgy and liturgical responses. To a newcomer they just seemed to make the whole thing into a club for the initiated.
It's lovely for a Christmas carol service but as a regular place of worship, well, I just don't understand it....
Posts: 31 | From: Yorkshire, England | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are numbers all that matter? If the people who go out through the back door have been so maltreated and abused that they have given up on God and Christ altogether, the fact that the numbers stay up could be a sign of diabolical favor, not divine.
Unless you're arguing that AV, dance, and worship songs constitute abuse (OK, some worship songs ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ), copying that aspect of evangelicalism shouldn't be a problem.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How about losing the centrality of the Eucharist?
No need to do that. Mars Hill, of all places, regularly incorporates the eucharist. What's not essential is reams of liturgy. Confession, absolution and blessing can be done concisely without losing any of their power. Just the opposite, they can draw power from brevity.
quote:
I'm also puzzled as to how the visible gifts of the Spirit, pretty much the central theme of charismatic worship, can be considered optional extras.
How central are they? Places like HTB and Willow Creek have held many services where "visible gifts" are peripheral going-on absent. Since accessibility is the issue, they're not essential: music festivals draw hundreds of thousands without 'em.
quote:
The major damage to my integrity would simply be that this is not how I approach God. "Enthusiasm" does not work for me and I would feel a fraud attempting to fake it in order to get bums on seats.
If by "enthusiasm" you mean fervor, plenty charismatic evo churches get along without it. If you mean AV, music in a contemporary style, and pared down liturgy, surely they can be incorporated into a service sans wailing in the aisles!
quote:
You're going to have to explain what definition of liberal you're using which means you don't have any principles or any sense of a right way to do things.
I don't have any principles 'cause I think traditional-style worship would benefit from modernization?! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Liberal in the sense of liberal theology. If acres of liturgy and vestments are the alpha and omega of liberal Christianity, no wonder it's in trouble!
If they're not, what's the principle whereby guitars are verboten?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
But I don't think it's helpful to approach it from that angle. I know for me I am A-C first, liberal second (not that I identify personally as liberal....). It's the same for open charismatic evangelicals that I know. I don't know of anyone outside of groups like the Unitarians who identifies as liberal first and can slot into any liberal-leaning church. IME churchmanship usually comes first - I may be classed as liberal but I'd rather go to an FiF place than a liberal A-C who suddenly decided to get electric guitars and drums and worship songs *shudder*
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But I don't think it's helpful to approach it from that angle. I know for me I am A-C first, liberal second (not that I identify personally as liberal....). It's the same for open charismatic evangelicals that I know. I don't know of anyone outside of groups like the Unitarians who identifies as liberal first and can slot into any liberal-leaning church. IME churchmanship usually comes first - I may be classed as liberal but I'd rather go to an FiF place than a liberal A-C who suddenly decided to get electric guitars and drums and worship songs *shudder*
From a Catholic perspective, modern worship has a lot to recommend it. It's holistic, engages all the senses, etc. Heck, plenty Catholic churches incorporate guitars, AV, and crisp, modern liturgy at Mass. Robes are kept to a minimum, just a chasuble-alb for the officiants.
My underlying concern is that numbers are power. Evangelicals have been able to get the church to uphold their beliefs on various dead horses 'cause they bankroll the institution. Until liberal and affirming Catholics have that weight, whatever the merits of their beliefs, their voice isn't heard.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I don't have any principles 'cause I think traditional-style worship would benefit from modernization?!
Liberal in the sense of liberal theology. If acres of liturgy and vestments are the alpha and omega of liberal Christianity, no wonder it's in trouble!
If they're not, what's the principle whereby guitars are verboten?
I meant "you" in the generic rather than the specific sense, apologies for the perceived insult.
I have no particular objection to guitars, or indeed drums. In fact I've been to some excellent services that follow traditional liturgy and incorporate both guitars and drums. The difficulty with this arises when most churches can barely rustle up one halfway competent pianist to staff the organ. The necessary skills for a decent band are not available to them.
It seems to me that you're out to ditch the things that you don't like for the sake of it, rather than look for ways of making those things work in a new context. I'm struggling to see what a service actually consists of except a long stream or worship songs if you want to ditch the liturgy. Is it to be endless droning from the likes of Gumble? Or the fevered witterings of those who think they've got the the gift of prophesy? Testimony from those who see God in every 50p they see dropped on the floor? My experience of charismatic worship has been a lot of loud music and a lot of people falling on the floor. If people find that draws them closer to God then that's lovely, but it doesn't work for me and I can't see how it works for them either.
Stating liberal theology doesn't make it any clearer. Liberal takes in everything from "orthodox but doesn't hate gay people" to "atheist but isn't willing to admit it".
[ 14. July 2014, 18:22: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I meant "you" in the generic rather than the specific sense, apologies for the perceived insult.
Thanks, no worries. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
I have no particular objection to guitars, or indeed drums. In fact I've been to some excellent services that follow traditional liturgy and incorporate both guitars and drums. The difficulty with this arises when most churches can barely rustle up one halfway competent pianist to staff the organ. The necessary skills for a decent band are not available to them.
Good point. I've heard more than enough ropey worship groups to agree with this. It is, though, a separate issue to being against 'em on principle.
quote:
It seems to me that you're out to ditch the things that you don't like for the sake of it, rather than look for ways of making those things work in a new context. I'm struggling to see what a service actually consists of except a long stream or worship songs if you want to ditch the liturgy. Is it to be endless droning from the likes of Gumble? Or the fevered witterings of those who think they've got the the gift of prophesy? Testimony from those who see God in every 50p they see dropped on the floor? My experience of charismatic worship has been a lot of loud music and a lot of people falling on the floor. If people find that draws them closer to God then that's lovely, but it doesn't work for me and I can't see how it works for them either.
Stating liberal theology doesn't make it any clearer. Liberal takes in everything from "orthodox but doesn't hate gay people" to "atheist but isn't willing to admit it".
As it happens, I much prefer a mystical Catholic service to a happy-clappy one. However, the charismatics get the numbers, and with it, the power. So if incorporating elements of their style is the price of success, I'd be more than willing to pay it. As I see it, the equation runs: my stylistic preferences; or a church tolerating and perpetuating teaching I consider harmful. As hits go, it's a minor one.
I'd love to think it's a false choice, but the decline of mainline churches, and the runaway success of evangelicalism, suggests they've hit on the right formula.
As for the form that a fusion could take, modern AV and worship songs, but more emphasis on the eucharist, no hour-long sermons. AV can enhance mysticism. The charismatics could end up beaten at their own game. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
There's nothing to stop moderate and liberal churches from accommodating the needs of both camps with different services. Right now, there's often nothing for those who'd be attracted by a liberal service in a modern style.
Where's the liberal version of Spring Harvest, Willow Creek, HTB, Mars Hill (the Seattle one)? There's Greenbelt, I guess, but it's not tied to all the networking that evangelicalism excels at.
The rich and popular churches call the shots. If liberals and moderates want a place at the table, their brand needs the mother of all revamps.
I find it quite curious that those churches with the most liberal (or let us say, theologically inclusive) inclinations are frequently the most firmly wedded to traditional worship styles. I've never come across a comprehensive explanation as to why this is the case.
However, one idea occurs to me. It seems that independently-run/congregationalist churches are more likely to be evangelical than others (and even evangelical CofE churches are accused of being more congregational than parish-minded). My view is that such churches find it simpler to switch to a worship band than those that have a more centralised structure. British Methodism, for example, is more liberal and also endures a circuit system, which means pulpits suffer from a lack of stability. This means it's hard to coordinate changing preferences in worship style with what a bunch of circulating preachers/ministers can work with. One church = one minister (perhaps with internal assistant ministers, if the funds are available) makes it easier to try new things.
Having said all that, the congregationalist URC, Unitarians and Quakers aren't (on the whole) evangelical, and neither do they go in much for popular music styles, AFAIK.....
Despite the use of readers, the shortage of clergy and the parish system, the CofE benefits from more stability in its pulpits, and I understand that even some of its MOTR congregations are engaging more with modern music and with worship bands these days, though I don't know if this is widespread. Many English RC congregations have gone down this route, I believe.
[ 14. July 2014, 19:46: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Svitlana
Isn't it the split between the word and the sacrament? (Call it the Reformation if you like). I mean that Protestantism rejected sacramentalism and symbolism, and adhered to the written/spoken word; thus modern Protestants do likewise.
Of course, there have been liberal Protestants and liberal Evangelicals, but liberals have tended to stick with sacrament/symbol, and seem more Catholic, since they reject discourse-based services.
Maybe I haven't really explained that at all!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find it quite curious that those churches with the most liberal (or let us say, theologically inclusive) inclinations are frequently the most firmly wedded to traditional worship styles. I've never come across a comprehensive explanation as to why this is the case. [...]
Exactly! I'm similarly intrigued by this disconnect.
My personal theory is that ritual conservatism serves to compensate for theological liberalism. Witness, in addition to the Southwark sock police, Giles Fraser's vehement objection to ending the dead-letter canon on robes. (General Synod just voted it through. Sky is, as yet, stubbornly aloft.)
Evangelicals, confident in their theology, are more relaxed about appearance. Mark Driscoll may be a prick, but he said it well: "We're theologically conservative but culturally liberal."
This is all tied to much deeper issues of confidence. Liberals are notoriously reluctant to get into a pulpit and express their beliefs in plain language. How many priests say, "I don't believe that Jesus said everything in the gospels," or, "Some of Paul's letters are forgeries." One thing's for sure: far fewer than believe those things.
Dressing up for services and sticking closely to the liturgy offers even more cover.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
(Raises hand cautiously)
We are as liturgically informal as it's possible to be, even within the latitude granted to FE. Robes are rare. We sit on bean bags and use bakery bread and wine from Tesco.
We're not definitively liberal in theology, but many of us would identify as liberals. We strive to be welcoming and tolerant of liberal or conservative theology, notwithstanding having quite a few members who would get the automatic disapproval of some theological conservatives.
But I know the pattern you describe is to a first approximation true. It does not, however, have to be.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I wonder if it's that we all need 'boundary markers' to indicate how we are distinctive from the prevailing culture. So churches will almost always be either theologically conservative or liturgically conservative. Otherwise, what is there to mark us out from those around us who don't follow Christ?
Ideally, I think we should be marked out as different by the radically godly nature of our lives. But if that's not the case...
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Dressing up for services and sticking closely to the liturgy offers even more cover.
That makes it sound consciously duplicitous, Byron, which I don't think I would agree with. Though I understand your point otherwise. It might be fairer to say they retain the symbols but are in a process of re-negotiating the things pointed to. (Or in some cases discarded perhaps.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!
I think there's a lot in this, and it shows how modernism could feed a liberal ethos. AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.
To 11, and beyond. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!
I think there's a lot in this, and it shows how modernism could feed a liberal ethos. AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.
To 11, and beyond.
Oh I wouldn't go that far, but yes, we use a lot of music, although we don't as a rule sing (the only time we've put a music group together was for Greenbelt last year and that ended in kazoos).
Lots of AV though; readings may be projected rather than read, with an audio-visual backing. We also use a lot of short clips from popular culture, or alternatively bizarre arcana the minister has found on the web, where it touches the subject matter.
It's on YouTube but not wanting to be seen to plug.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Dressing up for services and sticking closely to the liturgy offers even more cover.
That makes it sound consciously duplicitous, Byron, which I don't think I would agree with. Though I understand your point otherwise. It might be fairer to say they retain the symbols but are in a process of re-negotiating the things pointed to. (Or in some cases discarded perhaps.)
In many cases, I believe it's unconscious. Really like the way you put that about renegotiating the symbols' endzone. Bultmann's kergyma lives.
Although some of the obscurantism I've heard in liberal sermons can't be anything but deliberate. (Stop hedging about "context" and "interpretation" already. Oh dear God, not the temple cults again. You think the Bible's wrong. Just say it, already. )
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Byron
I'm thinking also about silence. I think there is a Catholic silence (which Buddhists might call the silence of nature), whereas for me, Protestantism is so verbal and logorrheic.
It's another paradox, since you would expect liberals to go for the latter, and no doubt some do, but I know quite a lot of liberals who like the silence and the incense!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Look, Byron, you like that sort of thing. Good for you. You don't like robes. Fairy nuff. But will you please stop pushing this line that crashbang music +AV+not much dressing up is The Answer To The Church's Problems (TM) and that anyone who doesn't go along with you is dooming the Church to die of inanition. At best it's terribly simplistic and shallow, and at worst it could look to the uncharitable like you were trolling.
[ 14. July 2014, 20:58: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it the split between the word and the sacrament? (Call it the Reformation if you like). I mean that Protestantism rejected sacramentalism and symbolism, and adhered to the written/spoken word; thus modern Protestants do likewise.
Of course, there have been liberal Protestants and liberal Evangelicals, but liberals have tended to stick with sacrament/symbol, and seem more Catholic, since they reject discourse-based services.
Ah, that's interesting. So you think it's the attachment to sacramentalism and symbol that makes liberal, non-literal interpretations of the Bible more possible and acceptable? That makes sense.
It doesn't necessarily explain the appeal of popular music and informality in some evangelical forms, though. Perhaps there's distinction to be made here: Calvinistic evangelicalism prioritises the Word and doctrinal precision, but although the more Armenian type might keep the long sermons it also tends towards the more experiential, the emotional rather than the intellectual.
I've heard it said that Pentecostalism can end up fetishising certain symbolic acts and phrases of its own, even that it represents a sort of re-Catholicisation of Protestantism. I doubt that the more liberal-leaning sacramentalists would appreciate this connection being made, but the South American Catholics who've responded to the Pentecostalisation of their culture by speaking in tongues and making a racket in church, etc., might not mind at all.
[ 14. July 2014, 20:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Byron
I'm thinking also about silence. I think there is a Catholic silence (which Buddhists might call the silence of nature), whereas for me, Protestantism is so verbal and logorrheic.
It's another paradox, since you would expect liberals to go for the latter, and no doubt some do, but I know quite a lot of liberals who like the silence and the incense!
Lots of this taps emotion, so can see why it cuts across theological boundaries.
Some of the best contemplative prayer I've experienced has come courtesy of charismatic evangelicals, who've applied their talent for the arts to things like labyrinths and prayer-sculpture.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think liberals are less into discourse. This sounds odd, as some of them are liberal intelligentsia, who no doubt are prolix on all manner of things, but vis a vis God they turn into sacramentalists, as they are into mystery, and introversion and diffusion. Whereas evangelical Protestants strike me as more extrovert and discourse-related and less sacramental. I could be wrong!
I think there's a lot in this, and it shows how modernism could feed a liberal ethos. AV and modern music could amp up the emotional power of the sacraments. Smoke machines, soundsacape, trippy video, the works.
To 11, and beyond.
Well - 9 at least.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
HRB - don't. Please don't. You wouldn't believe, especially in this neck of the woods, how the shadow of NoS hangs over anyone trying to do anything vaguely out of the ordinary, especially if their target demographic is the young unchurched...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Svitlana wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So you think it's the attachment to sacramentalism and symbol that makes liberal, non-literal interpretations of the Bible more possible and acceptable? That makes sense.
Actually, I hadn't made that connection, but it makes sense, that liberals are non-literal, therefore not so much into discourse, and more into symbols. By gum, this is interesting.
There is still an odd disconnect - theologically liberal, liturgically conservative.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Look, Byron, you like that sort of thing. Good for you. You don't like robes. Fairy nuff. But will you please stop pushing this line that crashbang music +AV+not much dressing up is The Answer To The Church's Problems (TM) and that anyone who doesn't go along with you is dooming the Church to die of inanition. At best it's terribly simplistic and shallow, and at worst it could look to the uncharitable like you were trolling.
Erm, read up, it's not my personal preference. "As it happens, I much prefer a mystical Catholic service to a happy-clappy one."
I'm simply suggesting that liberal and moderate churches could, in general, be become more accessible by learning from aspects of charismatic evangelicalism. This doesn't have to involve being carbon copies of Willow Creek. Robes can stay if they're considered essential.
Also above, I've suggested above how AV could enhance sacramental worship. It's not about liberalism becoming evangelicalism, but learning from it to craft a specifically liberal form of modern worship. Karl's described this perfectly.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Svitlana wrote:
Ah, that's interesting. So you think it's the attachment to sacramentalism and symbol that makes liberal, non-literal interpretations of the Bible more possible and acceptable? That makes sense.
Actually, I hadn't made that connection, but it makes sense, that liberals are non-literal, therefore not so much into discourse, and more into symbols. By gum, this is interesting.
There is still an odd disconnect - theologically liberal, liturgically conservative.
Which may be why if they don't go for traditional liturgy they're proverbally to be found imbuing pebbles with significance in Alt Worship venues...
These days my main problem with long sermons, OTOH, is that if they don't send me to sleep it's because the speaker has said enough asinine things that make me want to rip their limbs off. YMMV, naturally.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Odder than liturgically liberal (if you can call it that), theologically conservative?
As a liturgical (theological) liberal, I'd say that trad liturgy can give you room to think and reflect- the reasonably predictable external structure frees up capacity in the mind. And of course symbols are as much part of discourse as anything else.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[...] To 11, and beyond.
Well - 9 at least.
Ah, did wonder if that very Anglican cult would make an appearance.
It may be that Chris Brain's antics did scare many off experimenting with sacramental worship. If they did, it's misguided. The Sheffield fiasco has far more to do with the cult of personality and inadequate checks on power than it does rejigging the eucharist.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Fair enough Karl. I certainly wouldn't want to be considered as against any of those things. Just that those who cannot remember the past are etc. etc.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@South Coast Kevin, as a both/and rather than either/or proponent, the issue I have with your comment about 'the radical godliness of our lives' is that it can easily descend into pietistic judgementalism ...
'That church over there is into conservativism/liberalism (or whatever else) because the people there aren't living radically godly lives ...'
One person's radically godly life can be someone else's pietistic pain in the backside.
We're all trying to follow Christ. We simply have different ways of doing it and none of us are 'successful' at it. 'We all stumble in many ways ...'
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I'd love to think it's a false choice, but the decline of mainline churches, and the runaway success of evangelicalism, suggests they've hit on the right formula.
As for the form that a fusion could take, modern AV and worship songs, but more emphasis on the eucharist, no hour-long sermons. AV can enhance mysticism. The charismatics could end up beaten at their own game.
It suggests they've hit on the right formula for getting people through the doors, but so have night clubs and shopping malls. That doesn't mean they should be imitated.
That said, I have no particular issue with your latter suggestion. I think there is a place, for example, for the use of lighting to support and enhance the liturgy of the Eucharist. The use of incense, and of bells at the elevation of the host and the chalice, suggest that engaging the senses to lend drama and grandeur to the proceedings is well in keeping with the intent of the traditional services and using technology to enhance this sounds like an excellent plan, and if it were anything like what I have in my imagination I would find it very helpful
That said, evidence from the Cathedrals and similar large, MOTR churches suggests that traditional forms, well done, do attract increased numbers. The difficulty IS what the local parish church does, and a lot of that comes down to resources. Even large parishes struggle to find people skilled enough to operate a simple powerpoint or small mixing desk during a service, never mind a complex lighting rig.
The other difficulty is that "quiet, respectable churches" attract introverts. We aren't good at being effusive in our welcome, and our attempts to fake it are as likely to scare as attract. Evangelicals tend to be better at it. Indeed the evangelical "friend" who reaches out to people, apparently genuine, but mainly aiming to get them to church, is common enough to be a stereotype. One could say that the answer is fewer, bigger churches, at least in the larger towns and cities so that the fancy stuff can be done, but that doesn't help the small villages and islands where the church is probably most vulnerable.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Fair enough Karl. I certainly wouldn't want to be considered as against any of those things. Just that those who cannot remember the past are etc. etc.
Indeed. Byron's right on the button with the real issues there though.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[...] To 11, and beyond.
Well - 9 at least.
Ah, did wonder if that very Anglican cult would make an appearance.
It may be that Chris Brain's antics did scare many off experimenting with sacramental worship. If they did, it's misguided. The Sheffield fiasco has far more to do with the cult of personality and inadequate checks on power than it does rejigging the eucharist.
Yes, it may well do - in majority terms at least. But the point about appealing to the more extrovert is highly relevant surely. Growth - indeed survival does need extroverts and they are the ones we are boring to death. I don't think being an extrovert* drives you to evangelicalism, let alone conservative ditto. But if it's the only flavour on offer, then - well...
(* declaration of interest - I am one)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Odder than liturgically liberal (if you can call it that), theologically conservative?
As a liturgical (theological) liberal, I'd say that trad liturgy can give you room to think and reflect- the reasonably predictable external structure frees up capacity in the mind. And of course symbols are as much part of discourse as anything else.
Yes, but the Reformation marked a deep shift to the word, didn't it, away from the symbol? The statues were smashed up, and the pamphlets printed, and the Cromwellian army camped just up the road from me, and debated and debated, until Oliver had had enough. Words, words, words, torrents of the bloody things.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the music and style thing, the RCs have been able to pull off folk masses and so on and introduce more 'modern' worship styles into their services because they have a home-grown tradition of doing so - particularly since Vatican II.
There's been a parallel move within Roman Catholicism to the worship-song/chorus thing within Protestantism ... it's just that the rest of us aren't so aware of it because whereas some Protestant hymns and choruses have found their way into the RC repetoire, there hasn't been much of a move in the other direction.
Some Shipmates may be able to name RC songwriters and arrangers etc.
It may or may not be to everyone's personal taste but there's been a move this way for quite some time in many RC parishes.
As for liberal Protestant music - the fact is that there were plenty of examples of liberal music back in the 1960s - 'Lord of the Dance' probably being the paradigm example. There are others.
I visited our local URC recently and had to endure a truly dreadful recorded version of 'Lord of the Dance' which attempted a techno beat and a hip-hop style in places. Badly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Preserve us from the badly done. I think people see a lot of polished performance in wider culture these days so the ropey looks even ropier.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Amen to that. Whatever you do, do it well, and you stand a chance of people taking you seriously and wanting to know more. That is by far the most important thing.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Yes, it may well do - in majority terms at least. But the point about appealing to the more extrovert is highly relevant surely. Growth - indeed survival does need extroverts and they are the ones we are boring to death. I don't think being an extrovert* drives you to evangelicalism, let alone conservative ditto. But if it's the only flavour on offer, then - well...
(* declaration of interest - I am one)
Couldn't agree more about extroverts.
I've known a bunch of evangelicals who're far more attracted by style and friendship than by the Bebbington quadrilateral. Evangelical churches offer them a social network and accessible services. They in turn invite their friends along, and some even come. If the church taught liberal theology alongside its worship songs and fellowship then many would still come.
Where's taditionalism's greatest success? Cathedrals, where its theater has the necessary talent, performing on the best stage you could wish for. I agree with Arethosemyfeet that the limitations of local churches can apply to charismatic worship, but it's easier to do a budget worship group and AV setup than it is to assemble the specialized skillset needed for traditional worship to be done well. More people play guitar than church organ.
Cathedrals are also beacons for those who like traditionalism; local churches have to serve a diverse range of tastes, and in that setting, worship that taps pop culture is often at an advantage.
[ 14. July 2014, 21:44: Message edited by: Byron ]
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Just to give a few names that are familiar to me, Bernadette Farrell is a modern RC hymn writer as are Damian Lundy, Marty Haugen and Dan Schutte and, of course, there's Taizé. (Same MOR church I was referring to above had all of these in the regular hymnody as well as a number of modern Anglican hymn writers.)
It's very difficult for the MOR church choirs in the local church to compare to cathedral choirs or, say, the BBC Singers - and that's the level of comparison.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Agreed. I have endured badly-done worship songs at evangelical places, but it's definitely something Mainline Protestantism seems to struggle with more.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
