|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Why would God care about stoles, chasubles, birettas and suchlike?
That is so much NOT the point!
If we were God we would be perfectly in tune with reality, we would really (in St Paul's words) 'pray without ceasing', and we wouldn't need particular times or places or ceremonies or clothes to remind us of this. But we are not God, we are human beings, and hence although all of our life is God's we very often don't realise that. It's these 'special' encounters that help light up the rest of life for us.
Kevin, if you don't think this is true why do you meet in church or read the Bible at all?
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
quote:
Mmm, I'm pretty negative about the compulsory use of liturgy as well!
I'm sorry to hear that: I find properly structured (note that this is different from 'fussy') liturgy to be liberating, uplifting, and greatly beneficial for my spiritual discipline. I would like to develop other aspects more, I think, but without a liturgical base, I would have no religious leanings at all, I think.
quote:
I think for your analogy to work, you'd have to be proposing that we use Mary's words in language she spoke them in.
Not at all: that would be stretching the analogy beyond breaking point, and the whole point of analogies is to help to paint a picture rather than be directly and seamlessly applicable, otherwise no-one would ever have bothered to try to explain (for example) the Trinity or the Eucharist. I'm quite happy to try out ecclesiastical Aramaic, though.
quote:
We might use Mary's words but mostly that would be in our native language,
Would that my native language were the English of the BCP!
quote:
so if our vestments are (stylised versions of) regular clothes from 1,500+ years ago then why don't we just wear contemporary regular clothes?
For the same reason people wear suits and dresses and cummerbunds and ties and waistcoats and jewelry and so on. How we attire ourselves is a multi-faceted cultural phenomenon with many philosophical, theological and ecclesiological ramifications and applications, most of which have been covered already. Even outside of vestments. People wear Sunday best because they want to express that the Eucharistic celebration is important, and if they would put on nice clothes to visit a friend and attend a party, surely they should do the same for our Creator and Redeemer?*
Ultimately it is a matter of theological position and taste, and I think that there is a place for liturgy in civvies as well as in vestments. I happen to think that liturgy makes much more sense vested and, if your preference is for an environment or community without liturgy, then vestments make less sense. Moreover, I think that of all the possible views on the subject there remain a couple only which are thoroughly rotten, as Gamaliel said.
quote:
Tat is fine if it emerges from within the tradition, but if it's consciously adopted in order to show how much of a liturgist/sacramentalist you are then it's just as bad as the opposite tendency of trying to look cool in a check shirt and slacks.
A plague on both these houses.
I am a massive fan of tat but not of poncing about in it. Whenever I find myself in conversations about where the maniple has to be when and why so-and-so is "unsound" for not wearing a biretta, I do have to wonder what Jesus would have made of his ordained ministers wearing the clothes of the invading Romans and implying that he himself would have worn a lacy cotta had one but been available.
In summary, formal liturgy and vestments go hand-in-hand, but it is not a necessity. We do all kinds of things that are not necessary, however, because they are pleasant or helpful, or for a myriad of other reasons, and if they lead us not into sin, then they are suitable for worship.
*I have a tie for every liturgical season and occasion, and am slowly accumulating waistcoats and other paraphernalia to match. I find that getting dressed for high days and holy days, as a result, is a period of reflection and prayer about the themes and readings. As I put granddad's watch on I remember those things that he taught me that shaped me spiritually. A parishioner in my previous congregation bought me a set of prayer beads, and although I would never choose to say the rosary, just having it in my pocket (perhaps to recite the Jesus Prayer) helps me to remember to pray for those, often far off, who pray for me.
I suspect that, beyond the obvious, vesting has facets like these for clergy, too.
[ 01. February 2014, 20:03: Message edited by: Mr Beamish ]
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm sorry SCK, but you bloody well are projecting rather than infering ...
You've done it with Ad Orientem. You have explicitly suggested that his theology precludes the idea that God is interested in the rest of life, 24/7.
You are tilting at a straw man.
No thoughtful Christian from ANY tradition that I am aware of believes that God is only interested in 2 hours on a Sunday morning and not our 24/7 lives.
Ok, so you get the tat queens here on Ecclesiantics drooling over stoles and surplices and the like - but at Angloid says, that's not the point ...
Yet you persist in doing it. Again and again.
It sounds highly judgemental to me. Who the heck do you think you are that you can judge the quality of other people's worship/approach to God?
Some people find liturgy and vestments and so on helpful. Others don't. You don't. So what? It's none of your business whether other people derive benefit from worship practices of which you disapprove. Just because you disapprove them doesn't invalidate the benefits that other people derive from them.
Get the **** over it why don't you?
You are chasing some kind of perfectionist chimera.
As has been said, why read the Bible at all, why pray at all - because each of those activities involves setting aside a particular time for that particular activity.
You act as if we are somehow radioactive conduits for gamma-rays from heaven ... bobbing about with our antennaes pointing skywards like the great disc at Jodrell Bank.
Most people have busy lives. They bring up kids, they work, they do all sorts of things. So having some kind of set time to gather to worship makes sense.
How that in any way sends out subliminal messages or otherwise that the rest of the week isn't important is beyond me.
I may go to church tomorrow, I may not. Whether I do or not doesn't necessarily determine how I conduct myself the rest of the week. When I go to the toilet, I've still got to wipe my arse.
It's not the rest of us who are over-spiritualising things.
As Ad Orientem says, worship 'works' on a whole load of different levels. In his tradition it involves set prayers, colour, spectacle, chant, iconography ...
In other people's traditions it involves other things.
You may as well say that the Quakers don't take the rest of the week seriously because they hold their meetings on a Sunday and sit in silence for an hour.
Does that mean that they're saying that the rest of live is unimportant and that it's only what goes on in that quiet hour (unless there is something that one of the Friends shares in terms of Verbal Ministry or Spoken Ministry or whatever they may call it) ...
Strawman. Chimera.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Incidentally - is anyone seriously suggesting that the Magnificat is simply a record - as in a newspaper report - of a joyful song sung by a young Hebrew girl who had just found out she was expecting God Incarnate ... ?
I'm not suggesting she didn't sing it, but there's layers and layers of meaning in there and parallels with OT songs and so on ...
The same applies to liturgy, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Incidentally - is anyone seriously suggesting that the Magnificat is simply a record - as in a newspaper report - of a joyful song sung by a young Hebrew girl who had just found out she was expecting God Incarnate ... ?
I'm not suggesting she didn't sing it, but there's layers and layers of meaning in there and parallels with OT songs and so on ...
The same applies to liturgy, of course.
That's not quite what I meant to imply, if that's what you mean.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, fair enough, Mr Beamish. It sounded like it to me, but I'm happy to stand corrected.
![[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
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
I'm sorry. I wasn't really trying to correct you: it does look like that's what I meant! All of my posts since I've joined have been dangerously incoherent. I think I'll hibernate until March and try again then. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yes, that's all good; I'm just sceptical about the whole 'fuelling station' concept of the church service being the place / time / event where we spiritually recharge in order to get through the rest of the week.
I'm in two minds about this. I agree with you that being a Christian is about the whole of life. But I also know that I need to access every spiritual well/ means of grace available to me which includes the Eucharist. For me that involves all sorts of things (including vestments!) all of which aid me in being open to receive from God.
I honestly think that many members of modern charismatic churches do exactly the same the thing. I spent years mentoring/ providing spiritual direction for a considerable number of people in such a church who had very little inclination towards daily spiritual practices and who looked to the worship time (especially the music) on a Sunday as their spiritual "fuel".....of course, not everybody in that church but to be absolutely honest with you I have encountered a far higher level of everyday spiritual life in many people from a liturgical tradition.
The point is that whatever our tradition, there are always going to be various levels of engagement amongst the people in our churches. We will also find different ways and means of accessing the grace of God, vestments as part of the Eucharist are meaningful to me, something else will have equal value for you.
Let's seek to encourage one another to deepen our faith and understanding within the riches of our various traditions.
P.S. Mr Beamish Don't hibernate, you're only just getting into your stride!
[ 02. February 2014, 05:34: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There's an organisation active round here that's actually called the Filling Station. Looking at the website, I don't think they use vestments that much. So doubtless SCK would approve. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some people find liturgy and vestments and so on helpful. Others don't. You don't. So what? It's none of your business whether other people derive benefit from worship practices of which you disapprove. Just because you disapprove them doesn't invalidate the benefits that other people derive from them.
I realise that many people derive benefit from the liturgical and / or vestmented 'style' of church service. But that in itself doesn't invalidate the concerns I've expressed in this thread. I'm thinking about the wider implications and the hidden messages that our religious practices send.
It's maybe something that I take too far, but my approach is to consider why we carry out our religious practices the way we do. Why use liturgy? Why wear vestments? Why - switching to practices that form part of my Christian tradition - speak in tongues or have an extended time of singing fairly simplistic songs? What theological positions are implied by our practices?
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I spent years mentoring/ providing spiritual direction for a considerable number of people in such a church who had very little inclination towards daily spiritual practices and who looked to the worship time (especially the music) on a Sunday as their spiritual "fuel".....of course, not everybody in that church but to be absolutely honest with you I have encountered a far higher level of everyday spiritual life in many people from a liturgical tradition.
Yep, I'm with you on the singing as spiritual fuel thing. And the view is reinforced, I think, by the charismatic church habit of describing the singing of songs in church as 'worship' - 'Let's stand and worship the Lord together' says the person standing behind the mic with their guitar...
The subconscious message here, I think, is that we can engage with God more effectively and more powerfully when we're singing songs together than in other contexts or activities. While I'm sure this is true for some people who are particularly stirred by music, it's not true for everyone - is it...?
--------------------
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 Enoch:
There's an organisation active round here that's actually called the Filling Station. Looking at the website, I don't think they use vestments that much. So doubtless SCK would approve.
Sorry, forgot to reply to this. I know a little bit about the Filling Station and I did have it in mind when I was writing my earlier posts! I think the idea is good - I imagine it's very beneficial for those of a more charismatic bent whose church context isn't amendable to that - but the name makes me wince a bit, I've got to say...
--------------------
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:
It's maybe something that I take too far, but my approach is to consider why we carry out our religious practices the way we do. Why use liturgy? Why wear vestments? Why - switching to practices that form part of my Christian tradition - speak in tongues or have an extended time of singing fairly simplistic songs? What theological positions are implied by our practices?
The answer, I believe, can be summed up in the adage lex orandi lex credendi.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
People - maybe you - have used that phrase before in discussions with me. I still don't really understand what it means or what point you're making, though. Sorry... Feel free to explain. ![[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
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". In otherwords, the prayer of the Church is the primary means by which we transmit the faith from one generation to the next. In it Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. In fact, I would regard the liturgy as being equal with scripture.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". In otherwords, the prayer of the Church is the primary means by which we transmit the faith from one generation to the next. In it Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. In fact, I would regard the liturgy as being equal with scripture.
Okay, thanks. I still don't understand what relevance this has to my 'Why' questions a couple of posts upthread. Sorry for being slow!
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". ...
That's how a translation machine would render it, but I'm not convinced that is what it is normally understood to convey. It's more, 'how we pray shapes how we believe'.
It's in contrast to what's often perceived as the post-Reformation view, seen as having driven both the Protestant and Catholic sides of that division, that we believe correctly first, and that then informs how we pray.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It means "the law of prayer is the law of belief". In otherwords, the prayer of the Church is the primary means by which we transmit the faith from one generation to the next. In it Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. In fact, I would regard the liturgy as being equal with scripture.
Okay, thanks. I still don't understand what relevance this has to my 'Why' questions a couple of posts upthread. Sorry for being slow!
Eh? It answers it sufficiently well. Why we have liturgy etc.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
AO, you didn't answer 'sufficiently well' for me to understand, sorry! Never mind, though; it's tangential to the thread really, or so ISTM.
Specifically on vestments, would you just say that we should use vestments because we've always done so? Or because that's what your church (which is the only church qualified to pronounce authoritatively on matters of Christian faith and practice) says we should do?
I feel I've horrendously misunderstood you, sorry. Is the above really what you think? I ask because it seems so plainly foolish to me... If it does boil down to 'My church says so and my church is right' then that pretty much closes the conversation, doesn't it? I can't argue with that position.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The subconscious message here, I think, is that we can engage with God more effectively and more powerfully when we're singing songs together than in other contexts or activities. While I'm sure this is true for some people who are particularly stirred by music, it's not true for everyone - is it...?
Art resonates with the human soul and psyche, I've always felt, and it points to something more than the material world in which we inhabit, and the very existence of art and perception of beauty is, for me, an argument for the existence of God. Art communicates in ways that words or words alone cannot. I think that is why threads despairing about the shallowness of lyrics in worship exist in places like the Ship.
Taking words alone, and drawing upon a pseudo-fictitious example, I would be mortified to find myself singing something like,
'I like Jesus;
he's my mate.
He is really,
really great.'
when the nature of what the Saviour means to me is so much more than that. It's much more akin to
'Guide me, O thou great Redeemer,
pilgrim through this barren land.
I am weak but thou art mighty,
hold me with thy pow'rful hand.'
And so on. In the text alone, a text that I can get behind, I am taken through a microcosm of thought and prayer. Even if I'd never seen it before (and we've all seen hymns for the first time and thought 'Ooh, that's good' I'm sure) I would be able to get behind the concepts because of their richness, their complexity, their appropriateness and their applicability. Through the words the author has, to draw upon an idea expressed by Douglas Hector, reached through time and space to touch upon a concept nestled within the reader and bring it to flower, deepening their worship and devotional life and, hopefully, relationship with the Almighty.
Music adds another layer of meaning and expression and can bring out different themes in different ways. The various settings of 'Ave verum corpus' show, I think, something of the different theological emphases that one can apply to the Eucharist.
Even allowing for the entirely reasonable notion that most people aren't paying that much attention, music speaks to us on a powerful level. Something presented in song is more engaging: words are more moving, phrases are more memorable, and jokes are funnier, even for those for whom music is generally uninteresting... although I suspect that those people have simply not found a form that resonates with them yet.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, South Coast Kevin, if that is AO's position, how is it any more or any less untenable than your position which seems to be:
'My understanding of scripture suggests that vestments and liturgy etc isn't really how things ought to be done and my understanding of scripture trumps Tradition/tradition and anything that your church might happen to teach ...'
Now, you're not 'slow' and you're a perfectly likeable and decent chap. The problem, it seems to me, is that you're not liking the answers you're getting.
It's perfectly defensible, it seems to me, to justify liturgy and vestments etc if, as in the case of the Orthodox Church (and to an extent, other 'sacramental' churches) one believes that these things convey and transmit the Faith.
So, the prayers of the Church, in AO's view, are equal to scripture and many of them, indeed, contain scripture - the Nunc Dimittis, the Magnificat, various prayers and doxologies from both the OT and the New ...
So, if liturgy both conveys and transmits these truths it doesn't make a lot of sense - in AO's view - to interfere with it. It's already doing the job perfectly well, thank you very much ...
Indeed, if my understanding of these things is correct, liturgies began to become more formalised and 'set' from about the second century onwards both to guard against heresy - Gnostics, Montanists etc - and to preserve and convey orthodoxy - or what became Orthodoxy (and Catholicism, the two terms being synonymous prior to the Great Schism).
Now, the presence of a liturgy doesn't in and of itself guard against heresy - as we've seen in some of the mainstream Churches ... but taken alongside other aspects of the life of the Christian community it plays that kind of role.
You'd be pretty dim, for instance, if you came away from an Orthodox service in English without realising that they believe that Jesus is God.
You'd be hard-pressed, at times, to get that impression from some charismatic evangelical outfits I know ...
I agree with Mr Beamish, sloppy language produces sloppy theology.
You're right to ask questions about 'why' we do things - why liturgy, why tongues (if we go in for that sort of thing), why vestments ...
But whenever anyone here makes a case for vestments - to return to the OP and not pursue tangents - you instantly dismiss their reasons because you think they convey some kind of subliminal message that undermines the idea of engaging with our faith 24/7.
And no matter how many people who go in for vestments and so on tell you that this isn't what it conveys to them you insist that it must do because you've already made up your mind that this is one of the deleterious effects of such an approach ...
So, the same charge that you address to AO could be reversed upon your good self.
AO seems to be suggesting, 'My Church is right and that settles it ...'
You seem to be suggesting, 'My personal interpretation of the NT is right and that settles it ...'
How is your position going to take us any further than AO's?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Meanwhile, I'm with Mrs Beaky. In my experience what the Catholics would call 'spiritual formation' is in short supply across the charismatic evangelical spectrum. 'Worship' has been reduced to a period of singing simple and repetitive worship songs and getting some kind of buzz out of that ...
It's hardly surprising that such people struggle to find room for their faith 24/7 if that's all they've got to go on.
Now, I'd add that 'spiritual-formation' in the Catholic sense is pretty sporadic and ad hoc right across the board. People are poorly catechised. That applies everywhere.
The answer, I submit, isn't in ditching the whole thing and starting all over again from scratch but by seeking by word and example to show that there IS something in the tried and tested means of grace - in the liturgies and sacraments - that is both transformative, transcendent and capable of developing a 24/7 approach to one's faith.
I'm still aiming for that ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It may be a tangent, but it seems to me that the approach taken by The Filling Station to corporate sung worship - by which they mean charismatic style choruses from the usual suspects - has effectively replaced the sacraments in their spirituality/theology.
See: http://www.thefillingstation.org.uk/prayer/
I could start a thread saying why I believe this to be more damaging than the propensity towards vestments and liturgy among the historical churches.
For a kick-off, it uncouples worship and praise etc from the eucharistic life of the church and centralises corporate singing as the be-all and end-all.
It completely misses the context of Wesley's hymns and the context of early Christian worship.
It is both reductionist and in danger of focusing on performance and musical ability - within a particularly narrow range of musical styles.
See: http://www.thefillingstation.org.uk/prayer/
People have asked me what I mean when I say that in the absence of a 'developed' approach to the sacraments the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene has effectively sacralised other aspects - such as corporate singing - and made them central. In future I may simply point them to this link and let it speak for itself.
Am I the only one who feels that it offers a rather two-dimensional or one-sided approach to faith/worship/spirituality?
At least with the more liturgical churches there's an attempt to engage all the senses - sight, sound, touch, smell, taste ...
Here it simply sounds like it's all about some pillock with a guitar ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
SCK - do you want to effectively make church as un-special as possible, then? Because if so, to me there seems no point in even going. If all days should be as worshipful and equally holy with nothing to mark Sunday as set-apart, and no ritual of any kind, then you would be having mini praise sessions in your own home every night and just not bother with church.
As for liturgy, set liturgy is very meaningful to me in terms of the church community affirming/stating as one what they stand for, and supporting each other. As someone with chronic mental health issues who sometimes/often finds worship difficult, it is incredibly helpful to have the congregation buoying me along with saying liturgy together. It helps me praise God even if I can't feel it, because with my MH issues sometimes I cannot feel any emotion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - do you want to effectively make church as un-special as possible, then? Because if so, to me there seems no point in even going. If all days should be as worshipful and equally holy with nothing to mark Sunday as set-apart, and no ritual of any kind, then you would be having mini praise sessions in your own home every night and just not bother with church.
SCK can answer for himself (and I think he's got something going with the community gathering together that isn't quite captured in the idea of domestic praise sessions)... but, in a sense, yes. Isn't that what heaven is: the constant awareness of grace?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Back-tracking a bit, and I know this thread has been around the houses somewhat, I can understand SCK's objections if they were based on something like an opposition to the clergy/laity divide or some kind of dilution of the idea of the 'priesthood of all believers' - as understood within a Vineyard or other charismatic evangelical constituency ...
As it is, SCK's primary objections - as well as these things - seem to be based on what he takes to be unintended or subliminal messages about particular days being 'special' or more holy than others ... etc.
Many restorationists and radical Anabaptist types cite Colossians 2:16 about us not being 'judged' in reference to Sabbath days and religious festivals etc to prove that the NT takes a dim view of such things.
All of which is a bit out-of-context, but nevertheless, I can understand the objection if it is framed in those terms.
What SCK seems to be doing is going even further and suggesting that if we so much as have any 'special' events or special occasions then that somehow, in and of itself, undermines any sense we might otherwise have of God being present in the ordinary and the every day.
Which is complete nonsense. If I went to a swanky restaurant for a special meal tomorrow night it wouldn't mean I wasn't going to enjoy my cheese on toast or my Staffordshire oatcakes later on in the week ...
At the risk of offending SCK - a chap I hold in high regard - I'd suggest that he is in danger of running into an equal and opposite extreme of the tendency he is railing against.
He's setting up, in seems to me, even more of a binary divide and an overly dualistic approach to things. In decrying the tendency to have special 'worship services' and so on and to develop some kind of 24/7 God-awareness - as if the one precludes the other - he's in danger of having some kind of amorphous, shapeless super-spiritual mush - where people mistake whatever happens to be going on in their heads for the voice of God.
Sure, prayerfulness and watchfulness are important. Life can be full of prayer.
But those people I know who are the most prayerful are those who build set times and practices into their lives - it's the old spiritual disciplines thing.
Jade Constable has shared something very personal and has done so very bravely, it seems to me. It strikes me as axiomatic that she is going to benefit from the structure and framework of liturgical worship - and not just given what she has told us about her MH issues ... I would imagine that Jade Constable would gravitate towards these frameworks anyway, but given the info she's supplied, it makes even more sense.
I must admit, I'm having great difficulty envisaging what kind of structure and format SCK has in mind. It's as if he thinks we're going to float around in the ether rather than being people whose lives are shaped and affected by seasons, by timetables and by busyness of one form or other - whether we like it or not.
Human beings need routine. One of the characteristics of people whose lives are chaotic and disfunctional is that they lack routine - I'm thinking here of people with alcohol problems or drug dependency or those who, for whatever reason, are unable to cope with the general ebb and flow of life.
I really don't see what is apparently more spiritual about the casual, the ad hoc and the apparently spontaneous. Sure, there's room for it at times but after a while it just drifts off into amorphousness ...
There's only so long you can listen to the same 'prophecy' over and over again, hear the same reports of miracles that are always happening somewhere else or get the same buzz out of a prolonged period of simplistic song singing ...
Sure, things like Taize and repetitive chorus-singing can probably be therapeutic for a while ... but eventually the novelty wears off.
We need constants. To an extent, vestments and all that's associated with that provides that ballast and stability.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Garasu, yes, I think there is something in the idea of the community gathered together that isn't quite captured in domestic praise sessions - rather like the idea of a 'gathered silence' which is a lovely Quaker phrase.
But even the Quakers have a structure. You know where you 'are' with a Quaker meeting. They have nice, handy leaflets to explain what it's all about.
I have only ever attended one Quaker meeting so I can't say whether any two are alike ... and I enjoyed it and thought there were definitely onto something ...
I'm not sure I'd want it all the time.
I can understand those people who spend some time in Quaker Meetings and who also attend more 'conventional' churches for the sermon, the liturgy, the eucharist or whatever else ...
In each case there is an 'intentionality' about it. That counts for a lot in my book.
Coming back to what kind of subliminal messages people pick up from different styles of church and worship styles etc ... well, that's always going to happen for good or ill whatever style we adopt.
Some people will look at a charismatic service and thing, 'Hey, that's great ... it's lively, it's vibrant, it's full of young people ...'
Others will look at the same service and think, 'That's not for me, it's too extrovert, too in-your-face, it's all for these young, trendy types ...'
Or, 'They're cracked, a bunch of fanatics. I'm not going there ...'
My gut-feel about how people might react to the kind of thing SCK has in mind - whatever it is - would be that they're likely to have a similar range of responses.
'Oh, that's nice, as long as it works for them ...'
'Why can't they go to a normal church? What makes them so special that they have to be different?'
Or, 'So what? What's what they're doing got to do with me?'
And so on and so forth.
It doesn't solve anything in and of itself.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Art resonates with the human soul and psyche, I've always felt, and it points to something more than the material world in which we inhabit, and the very existence of art and perception of beauty is, for me, an argument for the existence of God. Art communicates in ways that words or words alone cannot.
I'm glad you connect with God and feel close to him through art and music. I also do so, to an extent, in particular through music. But ISTM some people don't - music and the arts don't speak to every human soul.
Mr Beamish, you might not have seen it but I mentioned upthread (quite a way upthread!) a book my church home group had worked through recently. It outlines something like ten different ways people connect with God, one of which was through art, music and so forth. But in that particular chapter, the author focused on church services as the place of our connection with God, whereas the other chapters were about finding God in the midst of regular life, through nature, through helping others, through studying etc.
It's that focus on church services (and the efforts to make them aesthetically pleasing) that I find concerning, because I can't help but think it implies an elevation of the church service (above the rest of life) as the main place we connect with God, and thus a downplaying of the chances of finding God in all the other moments of our life.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - do you want to effectively make church as un-special as possible, then? Because if so, to me there seems no point in even going. If all days should be as worshipful and equally holy with nothing to mark Sunday as set-apart, and no ritual of any kind, then you would be having mini praise sessions in your own home every night and just not bother with church.
In a sense, yes I do want to make church services un-special - because my concept of the church service is that it's simply the time and place when a community of Christians get together to encourage, support and challenge one another in our efforts to follow Jesus. ISTM a group of Christians can't really be a genuine community unless they are meeting together significantly more often than once a week for an hour or two, especially if that once-a-week service gives little opportunity for active contribution from all members of that community.
You say 'just not bother with church' but 'church' is the community of Christians, not an event or place. I absolutely want to bother with church in the former sense, but I think our interaction with other Christians is likely to be far more transformational if it happens rather more frequently than once a week for an hour or so.
Mind you, I certainly take your point about liturgy being helpful for you. Good point. But I'm not saying liturgy should be banned; I just think that the bulk of every service being 'scripted' through following a service book feels very restricting to me. But maybe I should leave this for another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What SCK seems to be doing is going even further and suggesting that if we so much as have any 'special' events or special occasions then that somehow, in and of itself, undermines any sense we might otherwise have of God being present in the ordinary and the every day.
Which is complete nonsense. If I went to a swanky restaurant for a special meal tomorrow night it wouldn't mean I wasn't going to enjoy my cheese on toast or my Staffordshire oatcakes later on in the week ...
I don't think this analogy works very well, sorry. I prefer to think of our life with God as analogous to breathing, because it's something that happens all the time while we're doing other things. In fact, your thinking that eating is a good analogy to our relationship with God implies (to me, at least) that at some level you see connecting with God as a sporadic thing. But it shouldn't be, should it? God is present with us all the time, we just need to become more aware of that presence and in tune with his ongoing, moment by moment guidance.
EDIT - Good grief, so many words. Apologies...
[ 02. February 2014, 20:40: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
Art resonates with the human soul and psyche, I've always felt, and it points to something more than the material world in which we inhabit, and the very existence of art and perception of beauty is, for me, an argument for the existence of God. Art communicates in ways that words or words alone cannot.
I'm glad you connect with God and feel close to him through art and music. I also do so, to an extent, in particular through music. But ISTM some people don't - music and the arts don't speak to every human soul.
Mr Beamish, you might not have seen it but I mentioned upthread (quite a way upthread!) a book my church home group had worked through recently. It outlines something like ten different ways people connect with God, one of which was through art, music and so forth. But in that particular chapter, the author focused on church services as the place of our connection with God, whereas the other chapters were about finding God in the midst of regular life, through nature, through helping others, through studying etc.
It's that focus on church services (and the efforts to make them aesthetically pleasing) that I find concerning, because I can't help but think it implies an elevation of the church service (above the rest of life) as the main place we connect with God, and thus a downplaying of the chances of finding God in all the other moments of our life.
Some people live lives of woe and pain, of such darkness and suffering that it could scarcely be expressed in words if they tried, whose homes are places of fear and suffering, and whose lives are a drudgery.
To these people, who come to a church where there can be a foretaste of the heavenly banquet, where things are presented to encourage prayer and peace, where the care taken in presentation puts them at ease and allows kind words of friends and ministers to enter them, I suspect your rebuttals would seem hollow. To such people, indeed to the many millions if not billions of people who do not exist in our relatively pampered western society, I suspect that to these people, for whom God seems so very distant, that church is indeed the chief place where they find God, and to make it into something else would rob them of that.
I simply do not see why we should abolish care and ceremony in church for the sake of the sensibilities of a hypothetical few, for whom there are already myriad possibilities for exploration available (prayer groups, study groups etc.). Furthermore, the notion that unless we remove worship entirely, the spirituality of all people is endangered is even more difficult to see. I am certain that in most Anglican churches, at least, it is a frequent message from the pulpit that Christianity doesn't only happen in church for sixty minutes on Sunday, on which note I'd like to add that I'm sure that prayerful encounters in the garden or whilst baking are part of a spiritual life, but collective worship also gives direction and instruction which is as important as self-motivated exploration.
I think that your argument only really works if we assume far too much, including most pivotally that worship is devoid of historical and cultural context.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
SCK, I think that's (sadly) a very naive and over-idealistic view of Christian life. Shit gets in the way. We live in a fallen world and part of that is not having as good a spiritual life as we could. When I am having a bad time MH-wise I physically and mentally cannot have the kind of spiritual life you describe, but even those with no MH have the same problems, whether due to kids or money worries or work or whatever.
Also, it's great that you can do your faith/theology all in your head/heart. Not all of us can, though - I (and others) need the sign posts of liturgy/vestments/saints/Eucharist etc to help us steer our faith. Singing, speaking in tongues, testimonies etc are similar sign posts for less liturgical types.
I think talking about one's spiritual lives as being purely internally-driven and with no outside ritual or symbolism creeps into turning faith into a work. Yes, ideally my life should be one of prayer without ceasing and 24/7 praise, but that's not going to happen. Yes, sometimes Sunday is the first time I've thought about God all week and I'm not afraid to admit that because it happens to everyone. I don't think that makes my faith less effective, it just makes me human. I think you are possibly not leaving enough room for humans to be humans here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mr Beamish
Apprentice
# 17991
|
Posted
Sorry: half of my previous post went missing (I probably typed over it).
I think that I can understand if you, personally, SCKevin, find how other people relate to formal liturgy to be utterly contrary to your experience and feelings. I don't understand how anyone, let alone thousands of people, can crowd into these mega-churches to listen to praise songs on electrical instruments when there's probably a perfectly good choral evensong nearby or they could just listen to some Monteverdi, but it speaks to them and I could not find any basis to say, 'Well, if they're listening to praise songs then they're not appreciating the psalms properly, so how can they really be drawing closer to God?'. Indeed, I would argue that God draws them closer to him, rather than people necessarily choosing to approach.
To draw more upon the relational nature of prayer and worship, we show our love for each other in different ways: my love for my partner or my mother or Belgian chocolates is just part of who and how I am and that goes for my love of God too (I hope!) but sometimes I need to spend time doing something meaningful with Mummy and sometimes it is sufficient just to be in the same room. Sometimes I need to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness, and sometimes I need to go away and prayer by myself in the garden.
This is nothing new, even discounting all the scriptural references to people experiencing something similar:
'Seven whole days, not one in seven,
I will praise thee.
In my heart, though not in heaven,
I can raise thee.'
George Herbert, 1633.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
One of my favourite bishops, who would not describe himself as a card-carrying Anglo-catholic, remarked that he always felt more at home in 'high' churches than low ones, because when you enter the former there are signs that the building itself is praying. Or perhaps more accurately, holds the prayers of the people for many generations. Candles lit, lamps burning, the smell of incense, reminds the visitor that it is a place of prayer and that God can be encountered there. Not that God can't be encountered anywhere, but having this special place makes to easier to recognise God in other situations too. Perhaps it's a bit like studying a photograph without distractions.
'Low' churches tend to be neutral spaces which only seem filled with God's spirit once the worship begins. And without the visual and sensory aids of vestments and ritual it is much harder work to connect. Or it is for many people.
I can well understand that South Coast Kevin and many others find such things to be a distraction and can worship both in church and elsewhere without them. That is probably because of a combination of personality and background. Nobody on this thread ISTM is trying to judge Kevin for not measuring up to different standards. But we are all different. (See my sig.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... People have asked me what I mean when I say that in the absence of a 'developed' approach to the sacraments the contemporary charismatic evangelical scene has effectively sacralised other aspects - such as corporate singing - and made them central. In future I may simply point them to this link and let it speak for itself....
I think you're onto something important there. Personally, I prefer the objectivity of conventional sacramental worship. It is great when God gives us a 'special sense' of himself. However, Jesus is just as much present in the bread and wine, irrespective of how we feel. The priest doesn't somehow make him more present by 'really, really praying', nor by having the backing of either a 'worship leader' (I thought that was what the priest/president is supposed to be doing) who keeps "abreast of the latest songs coming out of the worldwide charismatic church" (is that a different church from the ordinary one?), or the best trained classical choir in the country, nor for that matter, by wearing an exquisitely embroidered maniple.
ISTM that if one moves outside the notion of sacraments that are objective, then what you replace them with is likely to become dependent on whether we 'really, really feel' that we are in the presence of the Lord, and it becomes someone's job to manufacture that feeling. Whether they do it by whipping up fervour or the beauty of holiness isn't all that different.
A curious thing is, that a lot of the people involved in the Filling Station appear to be CofE clergy, who must therefore have other more conventionally sacramental roles on Sundays.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I think the use of vestments will "thin" in the middle of the candle, with those in the middle moving either up or down.
ISTM there will always be a place in Christendom for the way-up vestments. The Orthodox are not about to preside in suit and tie any time soon.
Plain chazzies etc will eventually disappear as MOTR churches close. No liturgical supply places will carry them, and fewer people will be inclined to pay to have them made or have the skills/equipment to make them. If there are house churches, a minimal, easily transferable version of liturgical leadership vestment may emerge.
"Street clothes" churches will carry on as usual.
I base these predictions on general trends in clothing. People wear formal clothing on fewer occasions, and so do not purchase much of it, so it becomes less available, etc. But formal clothing will not die out entirely; it will head to the upper stratosphere of cost and availability.
I also note what has happened to liturgical vestments in past centuries, such as the gradual minimization from ruff to stock to clerical collar.
These are opinions based on "what is." I offer no opinion about "what ought to be". I leave that to Ad Orientam and South Coast Kevin.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
SCK,
I'm afraid you've done nothing more than build a strawman or create a false dichotomy, probably both. As someone said in an earlier post, people need signposts and however convincing you think you are you're not going to convince those who need such things, and I would argue we all do. He who says he doesn't is kidding himself.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
For the love of God, SCK, I don't believe that engagement with God should be 'sporadic'. Ideally, we should have some kind of awareness of the presence of God 24/7.
The reality is, we don't.
At least, I don't, I can't speak for anyone else, least of all your good self.
Sometimes I feel that there is an open heaven, at other times that the heavens are as brass.
I sin, I fall short, I make a prat of myself.
We all do.
You seem to think that if we strip everything back to the bare essentials, whatever they might be, then the ground is cleared for us to enjoy complete, unbroken 24/7 blissful fellowship with the Almighty and be aware of his Spirit moving in our lives at a very conscious and realised level ...
I really don't know what planet you are living on. Are you married with kids? That'd soon disabuse you of that notion.
I've often mentioned my Great Aunt Nell on these boards. She was confined to a couch for most of her life with extreme cerebral palsy. If anyone radiated love, grace and fortitude it was her. She was dribbling down her chin all the time, she had to be bathed, people had to wipe her backside for her ...
The vicar used to visit once a week and bring her communion. She loved those visits. She relied upon them.
I'd like to have seen you try to tell her that 'set' times and set forms weren't important ...
Not only are you setting up a straw-man and a false dichotomy you also appear to have lost touch with reality and positing some kind of super-spiritual state of Nirvana that doesn't take account of the shit and the rough and tumble of ordinary, every day life.
Good luck with that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, Enoch, I suspect that the CofE clergy involved in The Filling Station feel 'restricted' by their more sacramental roles and are looking for an outlet to act in a way that they consider to be 'freer' and more Spirit-led.
As a young man, I would have sympathised. I would have been like SCK and considered 'scripted', liturgical worship to be 'restricting'.
Now, I find it liberating. I use the words of the Office as a channel, a vehicle, if you like, for my prayers.
Sure, these things don't offer a direct 'hit' and need to be worked at. We acclimatise ourselves to them over time.
The appeal of the 'free style' worship and the simple worship songs is very clear - it doesn't take as long to get into that sort of thing.
But however we worship, whatever style we use it all involves a period of socialisation and accustomisation - as it were.
I didn't take to contemporary chorus-singing and so on when I first encountered it back in the early '80s - but eventually I suspended my distaste and got stuck in. I grew to appreciate it.
The same happened in reverse as I moved from that style towards a more liturgical, daily office kind of approach ...
I fully take on board SCK's point about fellowship being more regular and sustained in order to be as meaningful as it should be ... I've still got issues to resolve with that one. Not because I believe that engagement with God should be 'sporadic' as SCK suggests, but because I find the kind of pietistic small-group settings that he might favour to be rather cloying and claustrophobic.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Beamish:
To these people [living lives of woe and pain], who come to a church where there can be a foretaste of the heavenly banquet, where things are presented to encourage prayer and peace, where the care taken in presentation puts them at ease and allows kind words of friends and ministers to enter them, I suspect your rebuttals would seem hollow. To such people, indeed to the many millions if not billions of people who do not exist in our relatively pampered western society, I suspect that to these people, for whom God seems so very distant, that church is indeed the chief place where they find God, and to make it into something else would rob them of that.
Sure, the church gathering should be a place of sanctuary and relief. But ISTM that's not where we should stop. As I read the New Testament, I learn of people who at least sought to find God and be content in all circumstances. Church services should be a means to achieving that end, I think, and not an end in themselves.
The focus on things like vestments (and pretty much all the ceremonial, ritual elements) makes me think the church service itself is being put on a pedestal as the main place where our faith 'happens', the main place where we experience God. I think church services should instead equip and enable us to find God and live according to his ways, so that we come closer to living fully in line with his will.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK, I think that's (sadly) a very naive and over-idealistic view of Christian life. Shit gets in the way. We live in a fallen world and part of that is not having as good a spiritual life as we could. When I am having a bad time MH-wise I physically and mentally cannot have the kind of spiritual life you describe, but even those with no MH have the same problems, whether due to kids or money worries or work or whatever.
I know I'm coming across as hopelessly idealistic... And I know shit gets in the way - there have been times when, for various reasons, I have not felt close to God or wanted to connect with my church community.
But, as I said a few sentences ago, I think we've got to see the church service as a means to an end, with the end being that we experience God and follow his ways in more and more of our life. Of course, that looks different for each person, depending on where we are spiritually, emotionally etc. at the time. But the church service shouldn't be the focus or be thought of as the end in itself, IMO; it's a means to an end.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
'Low' churches tend to be neutral spaces which only seem filled with God's spirit once the worship begins. And without the visual and sensory aids of vestments and ritual it is much harder work to connect. Or it is for many people.
Yeah, I'm sure this is the case. But IMO the purpose of a church service isn't to help us connect with God there and then, it's to help us connect with God more deeply and more consistently in everyday life. I've pooh-poohed other people's analogies but let me try one of my own - the church service (and other spiritual activities like study, confession, fasting etc.) are like an athlete's training sessions; they're important but only because of what they prepare us for (for the athlete, the game or race; for the Christian, all of life!).
Putting lots of effort into the church service is perhaps like an athlete focusing on their training sessions to the detriment of the actual game / race. Athletes do need to put some effort into planning their training, but only so that it's effective in preparing them for the real thing. Similarly for church services, I'd suggest.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
SCK - you are still making a lot of assumptions about what liturgical worship is about, and not listening to others' experiences. Myself and others have repeatedly said that vestments etc are not the focus of a church service and are not about putting church on a pedestal, but you are refusing to listen to us. We are happy to accept your experiences, why not listen to ours? We are essentially sharing our testimonies but you're not paying attention!
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
SCK said:
The focus on things like vestments (and pretty much all the ceremonial, ritual elements) makes me think the church service itself is being put on a pedestal as the main place where our faith 'happens', the main place where we experience God. I think church services should instead equip and enable us to find God and live according to his ways, so that we come closer to living fully in line with his will.
The Mass is the main place where our faith happens. It is the crucible between heaven and earth; it is Calvary, the empty tomb, the perfect Sacrifice and the Body and Blood of God. I accept that you're coming at this from outside the sacramental tradition, and don't necessarily believe this. But that's your problem here: vestments point to precisely the thing you're so wary of, not accidentally, but aptly. The theologies at play here are the fundamental point of contention, not whether or not to wear this or that.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Here we go again ...
Read.our.lips.Kevin - listen to what we are saying and not to what you think we are saying or what you have convinced yourself that we are saying.
Here are some of your comments with some interjections from myself FWIW ...
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sure, the church gathering should be a place of sanctuary and relief. But ISTM that's not where we should stop.
GAMALIEL: No, nor is anyone saying that it should be ...
SCK:
As I read the New Testament, I learn of people who at least sought to find God and be content in all circumstances. Church services should be a means to achieving that end, I think, and not an end in themselves.
GAMALIEL: Show me someone who is saying that they are.
SCK:
The focus on things like vestments (and pretty much all the ceremonial, ritual elements) makes me think the church service itself is being put on a pedestal as the main place where our faith 'happens', the main place where we experience God. I think church services should instead equip and enable us to find God and live according to his ways, so that we come closer to living fully in line with his will.
GAMALIEL: Everyone agrees on that. Show me someone who doesn't ...
quote:
[qb] SCK
... as I said a few sentences ago, I think we've got to see the church service as a means to an end, with the end being that we experience God and follow his ways in more and more of our life. Of course, that looks different for each person, depending on where we are spiritually, emotionally etc. at the time. But the church service shouldn't be the focus or be thought of as the end in itself, IMO; it's a means to an end.
GAMALIEL: FFS SCK, who is saying otherwise?!
IMO the purpose of a church service isn't to help us connect with God there and then, it's to help us connect with God more deeply and more consistently in everyday life.
GAMALIEL: Yes, bring it on. Who is saying otherwise?!
SCK:
I've pooh-poohed other people's analogies but let me try one of my own - the church service (and other spiritual activities like study, confession, fasting etc.) are like an athlete's training sessions; they're important but only because of what they prepare us for (for the athlete, the game or race; for the Christian, all of life!).
GAMALIEL: C'mon, SCK, liturgically and sacramentally oriented Christians say the exact, self-same thing. Why, I've seen an Orthodox poster on these boards make the same analogy and suggest that church is like a gym ...
Give me strength ...
SCK:
Putting lots of effort into the church service is perhaps like an athlete focusing on their training sessions to the detriment of the actual game / race. Athletes do need to put some effort into planning their training, but only so that it's effective in preparing them for the real thing. Similarly for church services, I'd suggest. [/QUOTE]
Why? I don't see how that follows at all. It's like saying that we shouldn't put any effort into preparing our meals or presenting them attractively because that detracts from the real business of eating - which is purely to sustain ourselves.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.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
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I read liturgy/worship a different way. Certainly not as earning brownie points with God - but nor a s a "training exercise" for the real deal of life. Liturgy is the real deal ... the rest of life is the after effect. Liturgy is the moment we enter into the relationship of God we were designed to have - we re-enter Eden if you like, by becoming the tenth leper, the one who remembers the source of blessing.
We do it well because we love God - if I want to make a decent dinner for Kuruman I don't open a can of spaghetti. Nor is it a training session for what may happen: it is communion ... and something beautifully prepared makes for better communion than spaghetti or baked beans.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The focus on things like vestments (and pretty much all the ceremonial, ritual elements) makes me think the church service itself is being put on a pedestal as the main place where our faith 'happens', the main place where we experience God. I think church services should instead equip and enable us to find God and live according to his ways, so that we come closer to living fully in line with his will.
Again, somewhat of a strawman, old chap. Firstly, as I mentioned earlier, the liturgy is the primary means by which the faith is handed down. Secondly, no one has argued that the liturgy is a means in itself. It most certainly is a means to an end and the sacraments especially do equip us to go out and live Christlike lives. That is the whole point of the sacraments - they are medicine.
The vestments, rituals etc. are there so that we can't impose our own personalities and whims on them. This is the whole point of tradition - it's a guarantee against relativism and arbitrariness.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I like that Ad Orientem ... you'll have me crossing the Bosphorus yet ...
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Vade Mecum and Zappa - thank you for illustrating the view that I'm arguing against:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The Mass is the main place where our faith happens. It is the crucible between heaven and earth; it is Calvary, the empty tomb, the perfect Sacrifice and the Body and Blood of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I read liturgy/worship a different way. Certainly not as earning brownie points with God - but nor a s a "training exercise" for the real deal of life. Liturgy is the real deal ... the rest of life is the after effect. Liturgy is the moment we enter into the relationship of God we were designed to have - we re-enter Eden if you like, by becoming the tenth leper, the one who remembers the source of blessing.
And, yes, I realise that underpinning this view is a theology of the Eucharist which I don't share, so arguments about vestments, highly ceremonial forms etc. probably won't get very far. Our views on the latter things spring, to a significant extent, from our theology of the Eucharist. However...
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The vestments, rituals etc. are there so that we can't impose our own personalities and whims on them. This is the whole point of tradition - it's a guarantee against relativism and arbitrariness.
ISTM a lot of the traditions in more liturgical, 'higher' churches are absolutely arbitrary, or at least were introduced for pragmatic reasons and then retained (and justified with fine-sounding but totally post hoc theological arguments) long after the practical need has disappeared. Vestments are an obvious example - being stylised forms of regular clothing from, what is it, the 2nd-4th centuries - but IIRC there are plenty of other examples. Like this one...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, South Coast Kevin, people who advocate and use symbolic forms and so on are, for the most part, well aware that they often derive from pragmatic originals ...
An RC priest once explained to me how incense was first used as a form of deodorant when crowds gathered - people didn't wash so much in those days ...
It was used in pagan religions as well as in Judaism and later Christianity.
I don't see how that in any way precludes its use.
On the theological objections, well, yes, I can see how there's going to be a fundamental divergence between someone like yourself and Vede Mecum and Zappa on this one.
If you don't have as 'realised' or sacramental a eucharistic theology as they do, then that's fair enough. That's up to you. However, you seem to be implying that such a position is wrong in and of itself and responsible for great ills both in church and society as a whole ...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
For my own part, I'm not entirely convinced that either Zappa or Vede Mecum ARE illustrating the point that you are trying to make. I daresay that neither would claim that the Eucharist is the ONLY means by which the Lord reveals himself or ministers to people ... it is a primary means ...
On a PM we've had some discussion about these issues and you gently took me to task about using the figure or analogy of eating and drinking in relation to our engagement/interaction with God.
The thing is, the Lord Himself uses this kind of language. He is perfectly comfortable with using the examples of eating and drinking to refer to our most intimate relations with Him: 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood ...'
Whether we take a memorialist or a more 'realised' approach to the eucharist, that language is there and is perfectly legitimate - indeed we have the highest authority for its use!
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Does anyone knows what happened at General Synod about this?
Any reports I've seen deal with the Piling Report and Women bishops - nothing about robes and vestments.
They deferred it. So should be on the agenda for the next meeting, unless the Business Committee do something odd with it.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Forgive the inadequacy of this repsonse as I haven't read all the many posts on a topic that clearly interests many.
As I understand it, GS are to debate making robes voluntary, rather than abolishing them. I suspect that it will be Business As Usual in most churches. Those who wear them will continue to do so, those who don't will not do so, but their postion will not be technically illegal.
I suspect also that it will not be as definitive as people are suggesting. Thus Nicky Gumbel will legally be allowed his smart expensive casual, but will probably robe in churches that would wish him to do so.
From a CofE/Anglican perspective, I enjoy the richness, colour and difference that robes and vestments, drama and set, give in an increasingly grey world. Theatre under the great Peter Hall, who often disliked costume, has largely re-discovered it.
None of the GS debate refers to the clerical collar. As a matter of interest, I did observe that that the otherwise collarless and informal Nicky wore a suit and clerical collar when meeting the pope.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
