|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Corporate Acts of Uncertainty
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
In the Catholic Church thread, Ad Orientem said the following.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But participation is for the faithful. Unbelievers who are present merely observe.
I've seen this before, and it baffles me as much now as it did then.
My family once celebrated a Christian Passover together, and I was given the task of going through a whole bunch of sample Christian Passover "orders of service" to find the best one. One said, very sternly, that the celebration was for baptised, adult Christians only; any children, non-believers, or non-baptised Christians were to "observe in complete silence".
I really can't agree. Surely, participating in the outward expressions of the faith is part of the journey towards deeper faith?
There are a couple of things (communion, for instance) that I'm slightly dubious about being done by anyone who isn't very definitely a Christian, but for the most part, I see nothing wrong with people who aren't yet sure what they believe participating in any part of a church service. (I'm not actually sure I'm right about leaving them out of the communion bit, either.)
What does everyone else think? Are there parts of corporate (or private) worship that should only be done by "the faithful"? Or should we encourage participation by "the unfaithful" (so to speak)?
(Edit: Capitalized Title - BF)
[ 14. January 2015, 15:32: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, for one thing I would differentiate into at least four groups:
- Unbeliever
- Inquirer
- Catechumen
- Believer
Consequently, I think we can distinguish
- Enticing
- Informing
- Integrating
- Enacting
as the appropriate forms of "participation" of these groups in the communal worship. It is entirely possible that all of these functions can be carried out by (possibly different parts of) one communal event. But it is also entirely possible that this is not the case. We don't have to "overload" a specific event with opportunities for all. Neither is it necessarily the most "welcoming" to simply treat an Unbeliever as a Believer.
I can speak from experience here, since as convert I went through these stages. And honestly, I personally at least didn't want "full participation" from day one. I was very happy to be able to "observe silently" for about a year, and to stay well clear of being part of the religious practice.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Our reinvigorated and reconfigured Ecclesiantics host team is just dying to get its hands on this discussion, so it's going there. No corporate acts of uncertainty are involved in the moving of this thread.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Isn't a Christian Passover automatically a Eucharist, even though admittedly it's what one might describe as an unusual form?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I can speak from experience here, since as convert I went through these stages. And honestly, I personally at least didn't want "full participation" from day one. I was very happy to be able to "observe silently" for about a year, and to stay well clear of being part of the religious practice.
Surely the point here is that it was your choice about how much participation you undertook. I cannot read anyone's mind and so I cannot dictate that this person should be merely "observing" whilst that person is now ready to take a more active role.
Our acts of worship - whatever they are - should always leave space for people to engage in the way that they feel most appropriate. There should be the space for people to "sit on the sidelines" if they so wish, without being badgered to join in with something that they don't feel ready for. But I think it is dangerous and even disastrous to attempt to dictate who is or is not deemed "ready".
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Surely, participating in the outward expressions of the faith is part of the journey towards deeper faith?
Absolutely!
I think that the problem sometimes is in our own heads. We can think "it is hypocrisy for someone to be doing something (like worship) when they don't really believe." But actually, often what is happening is that people are "trying it on for size". Part of exploring faith is tentatively dipping your toe in the waters and seeing how it feels.
In reality, in almost every congregation there will be a mixture of people who know what they believe, people who sort of believe but aren't very clear about the specifics, people who don't believe but might want to, people who used to believe and are now just holding on by their finger tips, etc etc.
Good churches will be aware of this and make allowances accordingly.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
One problem with saying that uncommitted people can do anything in the church is that it gives them nothing to aim for. Why come to any sort of decision about your beliefs if you'll simply carry on doing the same things that you were allowed to do before?
I think it can also smack of desperation from the church's side; churches are often eager to get able-bodied and articulate people doing stuff in church, and sometimes it seems they don't really care what you believe, so long as you'll turn up and carry out certain tasks when required.
Of course, different churches have a different ethos when it comes to belief. Becoming an Anglican, for example, seems to be quite a nebulous thing. Everyone 'belongs', and barriers are low. This has its advantages and disadvantages.
[ 14. January 2015, 20:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One problem with saying that uncommitted people can do anything in the church is that it gives them nothing to aim for. Why come to any sort of decision about your beliefs if you'll simply carry on doing the same things that you were allowed to do before?
Because those beliefs matter, or should matter, in themselves, regardless of what you can do or whether you are doing anything at all in a particular church context. Do you really want to have people saying 'I'd better work myself into believing in the Virgin Birth/ Resurrection/ real Presence/ Apostolic Succession/ whatever because then I'll be able to read the lesson/ lead prayers/ be on the church council/ receive holy communion/ petsit the Minister's cat while he's on holiday/ whatever'?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I feel that many mainstream churches wouldn't be at ease with the kind of personality types who want to be able to prove their faith before being given the 'honour' of participating in certain religious rituals. But for some people, faith might have to be that way round.
On a related point, I find myself thinking about 'belonging before believing' and whether it's always the polar opposite of 'believing before belonging'. Maybe it's more a question of spectrum, or even about a degree of overlap. In any case, some people do come to faith without having first found themselves kept busy in a friendly church community. (I wonder if this happens more often outside of Western cultures, or among certain social or ethnic groups....)
I understand that in Islam helping out at the mosque is not generally something you can do before you've experienced conversion.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It all depends. We've had officially Buddhist people on the altar guild, choir, and so forth, but the Lord's Supper and teaching are right out unless you're a baptized believer. So also with being an elder or performing any function where you impact the life and faith of others. But you can participate up the wazoo in social and pragmatic stuff like food pantry, mowing the grass, going to parties, etc or in receiving-end-only activities like worship and Bible study. And of course, baptism. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well that sounds like a reasonable distinction. I'd agree with Svitlana that the path to belief is (usually?) not a linear one and that there are all sorts of points of overlap and so on. I can't myself imagine that anyone would really 'come to faith' because they wanted to be able to hoover the sanctuary but who am I to rule out the possibility that God might work in this way in a particular person's life?
Islam is AIUI really about obedience to a set of rules and as such you might expect it to make sharper distinctions.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twangist
Shipmate
# 16208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, for one thing I would differentiate into at least four groups:
- Unbeliever
- Inquirer
- Catechumen
- Believer
Consequently, I think we can distinguish
- Enticing
- Informing
- Integrating
- Enacting
as the appropriate forms of "participation" of these groups in the communal worship. It is entirely possible that all of these functions can be carried out by (possibly different parts of) one communal event. But it is also entirely possible that this is not the case. We don't have to "overload" a specific event with opportunities for all. Neither is it necessarily the most "welcoming" to simply treat an Unbeliever as a Believer.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The analogy I've picked up is that of different (decreasing) size doors as you journey closer to the centre/bottom of the church. At one end of things : Everybody is very welcome to attend church; at the other we ought to be quite picky about who gets to be an Elder and there is a sliding scale inbetween.
--------------------
JJ
SDG
blog
Posts: 604 | From: Devon | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, for one thing I would differentiate into at least four groups:
- Unbeliever
- Inquirer
- Catechumen
- Believer
Consequently, I think we can distinguish
- Enticing
- Informing
- Integrating
- Enacting
as the appropriate forms of "participation" of these groups in the communal worship. It is entirely possible that all of these functions can be carried out by (possibly different parts of) one communal event. But it is also entirely possible that this is not the case. We don't have to "overload" a specific event with opportunities for all. Neither is it necessarily the most "welcoming" to simply treat an Unbeliever as a Believer.
Seems quite reasonable to me.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I can speak from experience here, since as convert I went through these stages. And honestly, I personally at least didn't want "full participation" from day one. I was very happy to be able to "observe silently" for about a year, and to stay well clear of being part of the religious practice.
That would be my experience too.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Strangely enough, I was having a conversation just last night about this whole thing with someone who has started coming to the church in recent weeks. They have never been in a church before and so all things (and I mean ALL) are strange and new to them. They have a background in Buddhism.
It is abundantly clear that they have had what can only be described as a revelation of God's love and grace. They love coming to church and being part of this new thing called worship.
Would I let them become a churchwarden? Of course not. But not necessarily because they "don't qualify" but because it wouldn't be good for them at this moment in time. Would I let them stand for Parish Council? I don't envisage it happening, but it would be interesting and possibly very valuable to have a "seeker" as part of the council. Would I let them read a lesson? Absolutely. They want to be part of the community that makes up the church and if, by actively participating, they can be made to feel more "at home" then that (in my mind) is to be encouraged. Would I let them be a welcomer? No problems. Would I let them act as server or chalice assistant? On balance, I think so, if that is what they desired and it might help them to understand more about this "church thing" that they are being drawn into.
(Here's where I suspect there will be screams of outrage.... If you don't want to be offended, look away now.)
Our church has an explicit and enthusiastic "open table" policy. ALL are welcomed to communion. This person has not been baptised but would be as welcome as anyone to come and receive communion.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Being in a rural area people of denominations other than CofE can find it difficult, if not impossible, to attend their preferred 'brand' of church. As a result we number among our regular congregation people who consider themselves to be Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist (they only come for Matins) and Lutheran, plus one person whose background is Conservative Jewish (German) and a couple of people who prefer our music to the silence of their Quaker background.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
I am quite happy with non-Christians serving in the altar guild, singing, in the congregation, in the choir or as a soloist, serving, ushering and reading lessons. And of course everyone is welcome to attend church. I would expect anyone who wants to receive communion to be a baptized Christian. Likewise, I would expect anyone who wants to be on vestry, or serve as a chalice bearer or intercessor to be a baptized Christian. I want anyone who preaches and leads worship to be not only a baptized Christian, but also a believing Christian who can say the Creed without crossing his or her fingers.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
but also a believing Christian who can say the Creed without crossing his or her fingers.
Do I have to agree to all the bits in the Athanasian Creed condemning those who disagree to hell or is it sufficient to agree with the statements of Trinitarian doctrine?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
If it's professed in the Church you belong to I'd assume so.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
but also a believing Christian who can say the Creed without crossing his or her fingers.
Do I have to agree to all the bits in the Athanasian Creed condemning those who disagree to hell or is it sufficient to agree with the statements of Trinitarian doctrine?
Nicene and Apostles creeds only, as far as I'm concerned. The Athanasian Creed has never had any authority in the Protestant Episcopal Church USA. It was removed when the first American Book of Common Prayer was compiled in 1789, and it did not come back until 1979. When it did, it was as a historical document, not an authoritative one.
[ 16. January 2015, 19:50: Message edited by: Try ]
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
39 Articles in the CofE, if anything, and IIRC even for clergy only 'assent' would be required.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I am quite happy with non-Christians serving in the altar guild, singing, in the congregation, in the choir or as a soloist, serving, ushering and reading lessons. And of course everyone is welcome to attend church. I would expect anyone who wants to receive communion to be a baptized Christian. Likewise, I would expect anyone who wants to be on vestry, or serve as a chalice bearer or intercessor to be a baptized Christian. I want anyone who preaches and leads worship to be not only a baptized Christian, but also a believing Christian who can say the Creed without crossing his or her fingers.
The problem with this is those who are orthodox (small o) Christians, but not baptised because their denomination does not do baptism. The Salvation Army would be the obvious one - it would presumably be quite common to have members who could say the Creed without crossing their fingers, but are not baptised. Many conservative Quakers would also be in that category (more common in the US than in the UK I'd imagine though).
What do you do in the case of a Salvation Army member?
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If it's professed in the Church you belong to I'd assume so.
I'm an Episcopalian: assume nothing! I must confess I had to look it up, and beyond a Canon requiring that clergy assent to the Book of Common Prayer (presumably 1929) and that "I believe the doctrine of the Church as therein set forth to be agreeable
to the Word of God" there isn't a lot to go on. I don't consider "if you don't agree you're going to hell" to be a doctrine as such, and I suspect the college of Bishops would likely agree (or at least equivocate convincingly).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Try
Shipmate
# 4951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I am quite happy with non-Christians serving in the altar guild, singing, in the congregation, in the choir or as a soloist, serving, ushering and reading lessons. And of course everyone is welcome to attend church. I would expect anyone who wants to receive communion to be a baptized Christian. Likewise, I would expect anyone who wants to be on vestry, or serve as a chalice bearer or intercessor to be a baptized Christian. I want anyone who preaches and leads worship to be not only a baptized Christian, but also a believing Christian who can say the Creed without crossing his or her fingers.
The problem with this is those who are orthodox (small o) Christians, but not baptised because their denomination does not do baptism. The Salvation Army would be the obvious one - it would presumably be quite common to have members who could say the Creed without crossing their fingers, but are not baptised. Many conservative Quakers would also be in that category (more common in the US than in the UK I'd imagine though).
What do you do in the case of a Salvation Army member?
In all honesty, while I want bishops, priests, deacons, and lay readers to teach (small o) orthodox doctrine, I regard baptism, not belief, as the prerequisite for being considered a Christian. The key word in "I want anyone who preaches and leads worship to be not only a baptized Christian, but also a believing Christian" is also. Orthodoxy is nice, and I wouldn't attend a church where, say, Bishop Spong was a regular preacher, but Baptism is essential for a Christian minister.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If it's professed in the Church you belong to I'd assume so.
I'm an Episcopalian: assume nothing! I must confess I had to look it up, and beyond a Canon requiring that clergy assent to the Book of Common Prayer (presumably 1929) and that "I believe the doctrine of the Church as therein set forth to be agreeable
to the Word of God" there isn't a lot to go on. I don't consider "if you don't agree you're going to hell" to be a doctrine as such, and I suspect the college of Bishops would likely agree (or at least equivocate convincingly).
Looking at the 1929 Scottish BCP I see that you have permission to omit the damnitory clauses of the QUICUMQUE VULT, which strongly suggests that belief in them is optional.
--------------------
“I’m so glad to be a translator in the 20th century. They only burn Bibles now, not the translators!” - the Rev. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger
Posts: 852 | From: Beautiful Ohio, in dreams again I see... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If you were to check with every person in the pews, you would find people at all stages of belief, it's not just in the choir stalls that doubters, uncertains, rebels and agnostics are to be found. If you see the Christian faith as connecting with people who are on a journey, rather than with those who have already arrived, then meeting with those who are uncertain becomes normal practice.
What the choir, or other similar activity does, I think, is provide an acceptable face of the church to those who cannot commit to the enormity of a faith declaration all at once, but are prepared to take a small step towards it. This small step is therefore affirmed, and built on, over the years.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Try - sorry for any confusion, I was referring to receiving Communion alone, not being ordained. So you wouldn't consider the Salvation Army to be Christians?
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Today's sermon was on the calling of Nathanael by Phillip, and the vicar reminded us that the invitation was 'come and see' rather than 'see and come'.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
