|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lat's knit a liturgy?
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You do realise that the article is behind a paywall, yes?
DT
HH
[edit to add: is "Lat's knit a liturgy" even English?]
[ 02. May 2016, 13:37: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Dr Millar is currently leading a the CofE's work about occasional offices. Clergy, Readers and lay people are being equipped with resources, information and support to improve the job that we do with families at baptisms, weddings and funerals. This is based on extensive, quality research.Have a look at the website here. I should declare an interest here, because I know Dr Millar fairly well, but I also know many people who have benefitted from her work, especially with funeral ministry and baptisms. It would probably be easier to find people in today's CofE who can testify to the importance of her support for their mission and ministry, than would be able to say the same for The Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali.
How is supporting and encouraging congregations to pray for God-parents a bad thing? The suggested liturgy that he complains about was only one resource out of a list which included hymns written for the occasion, prayers, eucharist prefaces, activity suggestions and so on. Perfectly possible to incorporate into a traditional, non-touchy feely service if that was more appropriate to the context.
Anne
Oh, and 'let's knit a liturgy' is sexist crap, pure and simple.
[ 02. May 2016, 19:56: Message edited by: anne ]
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Post-it notes are so passée. I mean, far more up to date than most Anglican liturgy, but still dated.
I think it is another case of trying to make something more contemporary (which means, doing the things that were done in business 10 years ago, when the clergy were last involved in it). It doesn't work, because it is a cheap copy. But the traditional liturgy is also a problem. It is tinkering wrongly with things that are broken.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Liturgy is knitting. Anne, I'm sorry, I'm not being sexist here - though hopefully provocative in a different sense. If liturgy does not knit a community together and knit that community to God's love, then it is simply motions. Possibly ritual - I've not really come to a conclusion about whether actions can constitute ritual without constituting liturgy, though I am beginning to think this is possible. But to return to my main theme, liturgy is knitting, necessarily so.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Post-it notes are so passée. I mean, far more up to date than most Anglican liturgy, but still dated.
I think it is another case of trying to make something more contemporary (which means, doing the things that were done in business 10 years ago, when the clergy were last involved in it). It doesn't work, because it is a cheap copy. But the traditional liturgy is also a problem. It is tinkering wrongly with things that are broken.
That depends on your workplace. Mine is decidedly a large business, and it would grind to a halt without post-it notes.
Not only are they used, but they are used similarly: to create a portable record. I agree it's not perfect, but I don't think it's tinkering and I'm not convinced that the underlying symbol is broken.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Liturgy is knitting. Anne, I'm sorry, I'm not being sexist here - though hopefully provocative in a different sense. If liturgy does not knit a community together and knit that community to God's love, then it is simply motions.
You are right. The image of liturgy knitting together a community, of providing the threads that link them and link them to God is beautiful. Liturgy is knitting.
I do not believe that "Let's knit a liturgy" as a title for this thread was meant in that way, and I don't believe that it would have been used if Dr Millar had not been a woman.
Anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Given that I have been unable to access articles in either link, I can't comment, but I think of liturgy more as weaving myself.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Originally posted by anne:
quote:
I do not believe that "Let's knit a liturgy" as a title for this thread was meant in that way, and I don't believe that it would have been used if Dr Millar had not been a woman.
Anne
I'm with you on that one.
[ 02. May 2016, 21:34: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
First off: Let's knit a liturgy was not meant in any way as a reflection on the gender of Dr Millar - I can assure you I'd have used the same expression (and have in posts in the past) if the person delivering the ideas had been male, intersex, whatever. Besides, the issue of knitting was suggested by Dr Millar, if you read the story.
Second: the story is not behind a paywall - just search of Bishop Nazir Ali Godparents and you can go straight to it.
Third: I don't think praying for Godparents is anything other than a good thing. My children and I always used to pray for their Godparents when we still shared night-time prayers, and I still remember them in my prayers because they're all close friends.
The issue is twofold: first, why is it that churches are having to try to 'attract' Godparents? Could it be because the church has gone along with secular society's fundamental ignorance or disconnect of the role of a Godparent? And further that we have failed utterly to stress to parents the faith ersponsibilities of Godparents, and of parents? Both of these things are clearly stated in the preamble to the service of Baptism in the BCP quote:
Parents may be godparents for their own children provided that the child shall have at least one other godparent. The godparents shall be persons who have been baptized and confirmed and will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the child committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living. Nevertheless the Minister shall have power to dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any case in which in his judgement need so requires.
The Minister shall instruct the parents or guardians of an infant to be admitted to Holy Baptism that the same responsibilities rest on them as are in the service of Holy Baptism required of the godparents.
The current CofE website about Baptisms stresses that there is a commitment to being involved in a Godchild's spiritual development and that churchgoing should be part of that.
To acknowledge that and then produce a service which talks about waving your fingers about 'like twinkling stars', etc, is to insult the intelligence of the people the service is meant to be for. Yes, I realise there may be large numbers of children present, but getting the adults present to sit and behave as if in a kindergarten is patronising.
Rather more germane would be to offer parents guidance about the choice of Godparents, and to then offer those chosen preparation before the service. And perhaps some people need to be reminded that, however good a friend, asking someone to be a Godparent who makes no secret of their atheism is not acceptable.
The church needs to ask people why they want their child baptised and we must stress that it isn't some form of anti-devil innoculation. As the established church we are bound to offer wedding services for all-comers who fulfil the legal requirements, regardless of them having any faith or none: but we don't have to baptise all comers, and perhaps a more honest approach - and offering the Service of Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child - would attract more respect, rather than ridicule.
[ 03. May 2016, 09:59: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Second: the story is not behind a paywall - just search of Bishop Nazir Ali Godparents and you can go straight to it.
Then bloody well supply another link to the story that's not behind the Times paywall.
You failed. No one else here wants to be your google-monkey.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
L'organist makes sense,
Dietrich Bonhoeffer had words about this and protested against the offering of 'cheap grace' which allowed a tyrant to come to power without a hint of protest from the Church
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The issue is twofold: first, why is it that churches are having to try to 'attract' Godparents? Could it be because the church has gone along with secular society's fundamental ignorance or disconnect of the role of a Godparent? And further that we have failed utterly to stress to parents the faith ersponsibilities of Godparents, and of parents? ...
Rather more germane would be to offer parents guidance about the choice of Godparents, and to then offer those chosen preparation before the service. And perhaps some people need to be reminded that, however good a friend, asking someone to be a Godparent who makes no secret of their atheism is not acceptable.
The church needs to ask people why they want their child baptised and we must stress that it isn't some form of anti-devil innoculation. As the established church we are bound to offer wedding services for all-comers who fulfil the legal requirements, regardless of them having any faith or none: but we don't have to baptise all comers, and perhaps a more honest approach - and offering the Service of Thanksgiving for the Gift of a Child - would attract more respect, rather than ridicule.
I was going to reply to this post yesterday and make precisely those points - but, as a Baptist, I felt that my view would be unappreciated.
In a nutshell, why are the churches (any churches) offering baptism to the children of people who profess no faith and basically haven't a clue what they're doing? to me it reeks of the "You're ipso facto Christian because you're British (other nationalities are available)" mentality. While I, in any case, take the view that baptism is for those who have "made up their own minds and can answer for themselves", I can see the logic behind christening the children of professed Christian believers who are allied to the Church family. But "all comers"?
(I suspect that this has taken right into DH territory, but I think we were going in that direction anyway).
[ 03. May 2016, 11:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Hang on - the rise of Nazism was due to ineffective godparenting?
Would you say Edward the Confessor was directly responsible for the French Revolution?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
(The above cross-posted with mine, methinks!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The issue is twofold: first, why is it that churches are having to try to 'attract' Godparents? Could it be because the church has gone along with secular society's fundamental ignorance or disconnect of the role of a Godparent? And further that we have failed utterly to stress to parents the faith ersponsibilities of Godparents, and of parents? ......
The current CofE website about Baptisms stresses that there is a commitment to being involved in a Godchild's spiritual development and that churchgoing should be part of that.......
Rather more germane would be to offer parents guidance about the choice of Godparents, and to then offer those chosen preparation before the service. And perhaps some people need to be reminded that, however good a friend, asking someone to be a Godparent who makes no secret of their atheism is not acceptable.
The church needs to ask people why they want their child baptised and we must stress that it isn't some form of anti-devil innoculation.
What on earth has given you the idea that clergy are not having these conversations with families? We baptise roughly 5 infants and young children a month here. We expect parents and godparents to attend baptism preparation, we expect them to attend at least our monthly family service (if they are not already members of the congregation), we discuss the responsibilities of Godparents and what the commitments they are making mean. We don't accept unbaptised, atheist or orthodox jewish Godparents (yes, I have been asked.) If someone does not feel able, in conscience to make the promises of a Godparent, we invite them to be a 'supporter' on the day, and we explain the difference. We do our best, as do churches the length and breadth of the Country, to get this right.
And yet, unaccountably, our pews are not packed weekly with Godparents bringing their godchildren to ensure their spiritual development. Some are here, or in their local church, many are not.
So a service, once a year, to celebrate this vital relationship, encourage God parents and god children to attend, seems like a great opportunity to me. An informal service with post-it notes might be just the job. Sung Eucharist with specially written propers and intercessions might be just the job. And a project to provide resources for both of these alternatives, amongst others does not deserve cheap jibes about knitting (which is simply given in the suggested talk as an example of a skill that we might learn, alongside speaking french and setting up a Facebook account.)
Oh, and "we don't have to baptise all comers"? No we don't - but canon B22 means that we'd better have a good reason not to - and "In my opinion your baptised and confirmed Godparents are not going to do a good enough job" is not it.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Anne
If you have baptism preparation of any kind that involves Godparents then you are the only church doing this I have found since one I left (moved elsewhere in the country) in 1982.
I have multiple Godchildren - 14 to be precise: I have never been asked along to any kind of preparation. None of the people who have asked me to be a Godparent have ever been offered formal baptism preparation. A quick ask among friends has found the same, and just because I'm probably too old now, I asked my churchgoing Godchildren who are now themselves parents and/or Godparents - none of them has been asked to go along to any form of baptism preparation apart from two who are in Wales, so not CofE.
I've refused to be a Godparent on a couple of occasions because both sets of parents were avowed atheists: one father in particular made no secret of his contempt for all organised religion and for the CofE in particular. On both occasions the reasons for having a baptism were (a) to shut up granny (non-attenders in both cases); (b) because they wanted to have a party; (c) because X good friend is "rich and gay and will have to give his money to someone". Other Godparents in one case were a liberal Muslim, a lapsed reform Jew and someone who refers to all churchgoers as "god-botherers".
And you don't think any of that satisfies Canon B22?
While there are churches that take the responsibility of baptism seriously, in my experience they are rare: and the attitude of many British people is still that having their child baptised is a right which carries absolutely no responsibility on either their or their chosen Godparents' part. And there are many, many clergy who, by their lack of pastoral care and effort, collude in this.
And I ask again: how is it beginning to address the duties of Godparents to sit them down and get them to imitate kindergarten children?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(I suspect that this has taken right into DH territory, but I think we were going in that direction anyway).
Paedo-baptism is not a DH. Obviously, other things are, but not specifically that.
DT
HH
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Reply to Firenze;
Of course I dont ascribe the rise of Nazism to inadequate god-parenting.
It was enabled by inadequate Christianity. Many "Christians" ( in inverted signs) were purely nominal. Their primary allegiance to the State. And they were baptised (and had their children baptised (complete with god-parents in attendance) as a matter of course and custom.
And Bonhoeffer, relecting on this, said "we baptised and confirmed a whole generation without asking any awkward questions or insisting on strict conditions". Indiscriminate baptism was the norm. And the godparents were privy to the process.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The failure in Christianity is absolutely the failure to be relevant and trendy. No one really wants to knit* a liturgy, rather, there should be an app for that. Tweet it to me baby.
*no one who knits is trendy.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Anne
If you have baptism preparation of any kind that involves Godparents then you are the only church doing this I have found since one I left (moved elsewhere in the country) in 1982.
...
And I ask again: how is it beginning to address the duties of Godparents to sit them down and get them to imitate kindergarten children?
Memo to self: don't post whilst hungry.
L'organist, thanks for the response. It may be that the number of baptisms we do is to our advantage in terms of preparation. We run baptism preparation every month, and that makes it easy to give families and godparents a choice of dates. The sessions are specifically for adults and older baptism candidates - we ask that they don't bring the baby, so that they can focus on what's being said. I know that not all churches offer baptism preparation, but I also know lots that do. And one outcome of Dr Millar's work is likely to be that more do.
I've got a lot of God-children too, and your comment made me realise that I've never been invited to preparation either. I have been a better, more involved Godmother to some of them than others, for all sorts of reasons. I wish I could say that I've always done my best - but I'm not sure that that would be true. But an invitation to join them for a special service, to worship together, celebrate our relationship, to take a step or two together on our journeys of faith - I might have found that really helpful.
The hungry sarcastic cow in me wants to say that getting Godparents "to sit down and get them to imitate kindergarten children" would be a very practical preparation for life in large parts of the Church of England, but I know that this doesn't help my case. But getting Godparents to share with their kindergarten aged Godchildren in worshipping God has got to be a good thing, even if that occasionally involves using our hands to make a star and thinking about starry skies as we pray for those who shine like stars in our lives.
And now, it must really be lunchtime!
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I dont ascribe the rise of Nazism to inadequate god-parenting.
It was enabled by inadequate Christianity. Many "Christians" ( in inverted signs) were purely nominal. Their primary allegiance to the State. And they were baptised (and had their children baptised (complete with god-parents in attendance) as a matter of course and custom.
My impression is that this was primarily a failure on the part of the German clergy. Very few, if any, encouraged the members of their congregations to consult their consciences before they blindly obeyed what authority figures told them to do.
AFAIK the Confessing Church consisted entirely of clergy. Individual acts of conscience were not expected of the laity.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Not that anyone should take any notice of my mixed-up views - but it strikes me that the institution of Godparents is already an admission of the fallacy of involuntary baptism as a sacrament. If we really believed in the new life brought by baptism, why would we need adults to nurture the child into the faith? To me that's a massive contradiction.
But, I've more-or-less come to terms with the fact that most honest Anglicans disagree with me, and that it is possible to see baptism as an inclusive thing for children of the church.
That being the case, it seems to me that being a Godparent can only honestly be asked of people who are well-known to be active members of the faith, preferably known to the congregation where the baptism is being undertaken.
The whole notion of "paper" Godparents seems to me to be the worst of all possible things. The only good thing which might be said of it is that in today's world lacking in commitment, it is one of the few occasions in life when someone is asked to commit to something in public.
Whilst I hear and respect that some Anglican churches put on classes for prospective Godparents, this clearly isn't good enough. The bottom line appears to be that someone could shop around to find a priest who would taken them. I am prepared to be proven wrong, but it seems unlikely that baptism entitlement is limited to parish boundaries like a church wedding.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not that anyone should take any notice of my mixed-up views - but it strikes me that the institution of Godparents is already an admission of the fallacy of involuntary baptism as a sacrament. If we really believed in the new life brought by baptism, why would we need adults to nurture the child into the faith? To me that's a massive contradiction.
We do the same thing as Lutherans, but the reason behind it is that we do NOT accept the notion "once saved, always saved." We believe it possible to kill off the new life given at baptism through neglect, just as one could kill off a seedling by refusing to water it for years and years. And so our children get godparents, because parents sometimes don't or can't do their duty as far as watering the young plant goes. The whole congregation is also on the hook when it comes to seeing to it that the young child gets proper spiritual care.
[ 04. May 2016, 13:21: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not that anyone should take any notice of my mixed-up views - but it strikes me that the institution of Godparents is already an admission of the fallacy of involuntary baptism as a sacrament. If we really believed in the new life brought by baptism, why would we need adults to nurture the child into the faith? To me that's a massive contradiction.
Well, I'd say that was a bit of a strawman. Baptism is the sign that God won't hold original sin against us. It's not supposed to magically imbue us with a full understanding of the Thirty Nine Articles, the Athanasian Creed or the correct knee to genuflect on in the presence of a bishop. Nor is it supposed to do away with concupiscence. Furthermore baptism doesn't do any of those things for willing adults either.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Anne quote:
The hungry sarcastic cow in me wants to say that getting Godparents "to sit down and get them to imitate kindergarten children" would be a very practical preparation for life in large parts of the Church of England ...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is it too stupid of me to think that things like baptism and other things are meant as statements of intent? and by God might offer some of us in need of it, just a wee twiddling bit of comfort? Is it enough?
Is it okay if some of us find bits of trite and stupid little nonsense that someone just invented last week while kind of high on some weird drug-like holy spirit crap, kind of happy and makes us laugh and cry a bit, and god forbid might bring us just a little closer to something divine?.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
