homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Why do churches worship as they do? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Why do churches worship as they do?
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently.

The case of Quakerism is interesting because the very early days of the Quakers were very different from what we see today. If anything, the early Quakers resembled something more akin to Azusa Street Pentecostals than Quetists.

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently.

The case of Quakerism is interesting because the very early days of the Quakers were very different from what we see today. If anything, the early Quakers resembled something more akin to Azusa Street Pentecostals than Quetists.

Indeed, and in some places, worship styles (and maybe theologies) has come full circle again, mostly due to the culture in which they find themselves. The various ways in which religious traditions have changed in Africa and South America are a case in point. Although evangelical religions are on the rise there, main line religions are finding new expressions more in keeping with the prevailing cultures than the cultures of origin.
###
Earlier on the thread, someone wondered about Quaker hymn singing. Friends General Conference (the US unprogrammed tradition) punished a hymnal
We worship in Song Many unprogrammed Meetings have a hymn sing before silent worship. My home Meeting sing for 30 mins before, and my current Meeting does so during the summer months.

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently.

The case of Quakerism is interesting because the very early days of the Quakers were very different from what we see today. If anything, the early Quakers resembled something more akin to Azusa Street Pentecostals than Quetists.

To an extent ... but even that is to 'read back' later developments into earlier times. The early Quakers could be described as 'charismatic' in the broader, 'enthusiastic' sense but their gatherings wouldn't have resembled those at Azusa Street in terms of style and content - they wouldn't have had Afro-American musical styles nor Holiness/revivalist style hymns for a start.

I suspect one might cite contemporary 17th 'enthusiastic' movements for closer parallels, such as the Jansenists among the RCs or some of the more 'enthusiastic' forms of Huguenots such as those in the Cevannes.

Meanwhile, yes mr cheesy, I agree with your point that not all variations and developments have come down to us. Of course they haven't. I've read that there may have been up to 30 discernible variations/iterations of early Christianity - including Gnostic groups and so on - but it was what became the recognisable core Orthodox/Catholic model that survived and it's from there that all other forms of Christian worship have developed or diverged from to some extent or other.

It may be a de-facto 'normative' position but it'd become pretty normative by the end of the first millenium of Christianity and fed into developments that occurred 500 years later with the Reformation and beyond.

It's like anything else. There was a tradition of novel writing, a tradition of poetic metre, traditions governing art, architecture, dance, garden design and whatever else ...

Whether people riff with those traditions or depart from them, they're still working with or against the tradition to a certain extent. None of this stuff happens in a vacuum, it's all informed by whatever went before.

So if the Quakers are 'radically strange' (and I like the phrase) then they are only being so in relation to a particular received tradition. There wouldn't be anything remotely 'strange' about the way British Quakers worship if there hadn't been a received tradition to react against.

It's interesting to note, though, that the more free-flow and anarchic style of earlier Quakerism gave way to a principled quietism within a generation or so. It didn't take long.

I've long wondered whether some elements of the contemporary charismatic scene will follow suit - particularly on the more 'emergent' side of things.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. I fully expect to see some form of neo-Quakerism emerge from that stable in the near future if it hasn't begun to do so already. I'm not saying that's good, bad or indifferent - but it's an interesting thought.

Sure, some 'enthusiastic' groups are able to maintain the fire and fury for some time but by and large all charismatic activity will routinise over time. That's why Pentecostal and charismatic groups tend to experience cycles of 'revival' and consolidation ... and why they have developed techniques to ramp things up every now and again if they feel things are becoming too staid.

FWIW, as far as the Quakers go, I don't think I could ever be one - I'm far too fond of my 'outward forms' [Biased] - but I'm glad they're there and I appreciate their 'radical strangeness'.

I don't think any of us can avoid 'sticking to the safety and comfort of what we've known'. I mean, c'mon, the Quakers in the UK have done that - at least in worship terms - for some considerable time now. Sure, they've pushed the boat out when it comes to attitudes towards same-sex relationships and whether it's possible to be an atheist and a Quaker at one and the same time ... but when it comes to how they conduct their meetings - minimalist as they might be - I don't see how they are any more prepared to move outside their collective comfort zone as any other group.

--------------------
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
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608

 - Posted      Profile for DonLogan2   Email DonLogan2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently. <snipped>

It is this that has driven people away and the rise in Fresh expressions etc. "I have to conform to your norm, erm...[sound of footsteps and a door slamming shut]" It`s the same with children and YP, have fun and learn things until you reach "proper" church age then sit still and shaddup!

--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "

Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But what happens when Fresh Expressions are no longer 'Fresh' or when 'emerging' groups have emerged?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what happens when Fresh Expressions are no longer 'Fresh' or when 'emerging' groups have emerged?

They become a new existing form. Your point?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Simply that it ill-behoves Fresh Expressions advocates to take a sniffy line on 'traditionalists' as it were because as sure as eggs are eggs they'll settle into some kind of norm themselves and probably resist whatever comes next.

I'm not saying that everyone else should take a sniffy line on the innovators or pioneers though.

But constant reinvention of the wheel can make you dizzy.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Simply that it ill-behoves Fresh Expressions advocates to take a sniffy line on 'traditionalists' as it were because as sure as eggs are eggs they'll settle into some kind of norm themselves and probably resist whatever comes next.

I'm not saying that everyone else should take a sniffy line on the innovators or pioneers though.

But constant reinvention of the wheel can make you dizzy.

If you are wedded to the spirit of the age you can be widowed by it in the next.

--------------------
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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sure it only makes you dizzy if you participate in it, and participate unwillingly.

One can't always escape, of course. I understand that Vatican II introduced some changes to RC worship that had a destabilising effect upon very many RCs - to a far greater extent than a few Fresh Expressions of church run by a few sniffy Anglicans or Methodists a few decades later.

However, it could be argued that most changes in (Protestant) church worship occur fairly gradually. Innovations devised by leaders in pioneering congregations don't win everyone else over in one fell swoop, not least because most churchgoers are in the category of people who dislike change, and they can put up a fierce resistance if they want to.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sure, the seismic effects if Vatican 2 on RC worship dwarf anything that we've seen or are seeing with Fresh Excreta .. her, I mean Fresh Expressions ...

Ok, I am being unfair and deliberately provocative. In theory I don't have an issue with Fresh Expressions or new forms of 'neo-monastic' spirituality and so on.

But I do worry about innovation for innovations sake and some of the liturgy-lite aspects of this process because I tend to think it ultimately dilutes the substance and content as well as the outward form.

That may be an over-reaction or a misplaced concern, but it is my concern.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do wonder what the aggregate gain is when new forms of worship from pioneering congregations become part of the mainstream.

Within evangelicalism, one of the most prominent innovations over the last 50 years has been the gradual ubiquity of the 'worship song/chorus' medley. This was fresh and innovative when it emerged from the Jesus Movement and the 'non-denominational' denominations ... But it's now become standard fare across many mainstream evangelical churches, whether Anglican, Baptist, independent ...

The only development/innovation with this format has been for it to become more soft-rock in style and 'band-driven' with greater prominence given to the roll of the 'worship leader' and a more 'performance' element intended to convey the atmosphere of the big rallies. I even know places with 30 or 40 regulars where they use tapes to enhance the atmosphere and make it sound as if there are dozens of people worshipping in the style of the big conventions.

Is this a welcome innovation?

I know plenty of people who are fed up of it but they don't know what to do about it because they perceive it as the new norm and think that because large and apparently successful churches do it, then so should there.

I have a lot more sympathy for those who experiment with 'Alternative Worship' or who go down the 'neo-monastic' route or use labyrinths and what-not ... But even there it all feels a bit self-conscious, forced and unnatural.

We are creatures of habit and become habituated to ways of doing things.

Yes, our traditional forms can creak and some times crack - but give me a lectionary and a daily office book, I'm not interested in cutting out shapes or messing with pebbles and poster paint. I don't want to be told what to do by a pimply Matt Redman wannabe who thinks playing the guitar will help him cop off with girls.

At least the Quakers give you space and silence. I may have reservations about their approach and fuzzy beliefs but they do have that in their favour. There is a rigour and discipline to it.

--------------------
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
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have never been in a church where the worship leader actually "rolls" ... but it might have happened, sometime, somewhere! [Devil]

Perhaps that's what happens when you "move into a time of worship"?

[ 13. September 2016, 08:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608

 - Posted      Profile for DonLogan2   Email DonLogan2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do wonder what the aggregate gain is when new forms of worship from pioneering congregations become part of the mainstream... <snipped for brevity>

The answer is they will probably not if they are truly fresh expressions (fxc). Yes they may display some forms of worship that come from other churches/denoms, because as human beings we tend to learn by copying. The whole idea is to have a culturally relevant church, not a graft from another church onto wild rootstock, which is just colonisation/church planting.

--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "

Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doh ... 'role' not 'roll' .. 'rock and role'?

My apologies, incidentally, to Sabina for teasing her on her typos when I do the same. Particularly if I'm on my Smartphone.

On the cultural relevance thing - yes, I get that - but do worry that trying to be 'culturally relevant' only creates congregations that are 'people like us' churches.

I spent 6 years in a Baptist church-plant for which I retain great affection. But it was very much a Guardian-reading, graduates/professional singles and people with young families type of church. Nothing wrong with that as it reflecting something of the character of the area but I did wonder how sustainable that was longer term as people grew older. We were among the oldest people there.

When members used to tell me how 'culturally relevant' they found it, I used to observe that whilst that may have been the case for them, it wasn't necessarily the case for the old lady across the road.

There was a constant churn and turn-over of membership - up to 50% one year - due to the nature of the demographic - people moving away with jobs or else moving on to something they found more conducive - either a more full-on charismatic church of some kind or to one that was rather more liberal or 'emergent' - the church lay somewhere between those two poles.

It could well be that 'niche' or affinity-group type churches are a de facto reality and that all the Fresh Expressions people are doing are recognising that and cutting their cloth accordingly.

But it does beg some questions for me. I'm not sure what the answers are.

For instance, as the number of kids increased the need to make provision for them in the meetings grew - not only with a Sunday school but kiddies slots in the actual meetings/services themselves. Some of the singles and couples without kids objected to that and used to avoid those services either staying at home or meeting in a nearby cafe for coffee instead.

I can sympathise with that as I'd tend to make a bolt for any door as soon as kiddies action songs start ... but it does beg a few questions for me in terms of our aspirations for inclusivity and making room for everyone.

Is this an impossible aspiration?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know Gam, I wonder if you might benefit from actually talking to people in FE and finding out why they're there and why conventional church failed for them. Often it takes a long time to realise it was the church that failed them, not they who failed at church. I get from your posts that you'd rather they thought the latter.

Better than standing at the side pissing on other people's bonfires, any road.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd also say that a Fresh Expression that "runs out of steam" or becomes more like a standard church has not failed.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, I do have sufficient self-awareness for that thought to have occurred to me too, Karl.

I also 'get' the point that a Fresh Expression has a different aim and purpose to a 'church plant' or what DonLogan2 describes as some kind of 'colonising' effort.

That all sounds very laudable but my point is that whilst it's clearly the case that 'conventional churches' have failed many people there's no guarantee that a Fresh Expression isn't going to fail someone else. Indeed, the fact that it gathers particular people could imply that it is failing those it doesn't gather ...

[Razz]

But that's true of all churches, of course.

And as mr cheesy says, a Fresh Expression that becomes more like a 'standard church' may not have 'failed' as such, rather moved onto another phase in its development.

I'm not sure terms like 'success' or 'failure' are quite the ones to use in this respect, as we could end up with some kind of market-forces model. Perhaps we already have that anyway, but are kidding ourselves that we don't think that way ...

I'm sorry if I come across all cynical and curmugeonly but I've been round the block a number of times with churches that genuinely thought they were breaking new ground, being innovative, being the next big thing yadda yadda yadda ...

I got giddy and got off the merry-go-round.

So, no, I don't see it as a case of my standing on the sidelines and pissing onto everyone else's camp-fires - although as this is the Magazine of Christian Unrest I reserve the right to do so.

No, rather, I'm fully aware that by pissing into the wind then some of it'll splash back on my trousers. But one has to piss somewhere.

If some of it sizzles into someone else's camp fire then that can't be helped. If some of it slashes back onto my jeans or my cavalry twills (ha ha) or my sports-joggers, kilt or whatever else then that's my look-out.

I piss where I please. I particularly piss on initiatives that think of themselves more highly than they ought.

I would like to find out more about Fresh Expressions, if only to piss on it more accurately.

[Biased] [Razz]

No, seriously, I'm sure many Fresh Expressions are terrific and are doing a great job for people who wouldn't darken the door of any kind of church anywhere. Fine. But I'm a warped and cynical old bastard and been around the block too many times to worry about my own incontinence.

If the piss splashes, then get out of the way of it. Hear it sizzle into the fire.

--------------------
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
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

I see Fresh Expressions as being an interrogation of the inherited tradition, and of the ways in which it can serve in the current environment.

Doesn't stop me from feeling that there is incomparable spiritual nourishment to be gained from a choral solemn eucharist, but I am well aware that this is not immediately obvious to anyone, and even on full acquaintance is not going to nourish all. No new enquirer comes in off the street able to interpret everything that is going on. Hopefully there will be an atmosphere of generous self-offering (after the pattern of Christ) which will attract them to stay and find out more, but it is something I can see would take some unpacking.

So, returning to the original question, they do so because it is an expression of who they are as communities and what they believe they are there for. I think this is why experiments such as Fresh Expressions are needed and welcome. I would make a distinction between Fresh Expressions and church planting in that respect.

[excised the echo]

[ 13. September 2016, 11:28: 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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Within evangelicalism, one of the most prominent innovations over the last 50 years has been the gradual ubiquity of the 'worship song/chorus' medley. [...]

Is this a welcome innovation?

I know plenty of people who are fed up of it but they don't know what to do about it because they perceive it as the new norm and think that because large and apparently successful churches do it, then so should the[y].

It's this sense of powerlessness that's the problem.

Of course, there are more traditional ways of doing things, but perhaps many charismatics have never experienced them (even though the majority of British church services are still fairly traditional). Or, more likely, they may be acutely aware that outside of certain charmed places, traditional forms of worship simply don't help to generate large congregations.

I often wonder if there ought to be a more clearly enunciated theology of smallness and weakness. My former Methodist minister used to say he preferred small churches. In a rapidly declining denomination with a constituency that's reluctant to change that makes sense. The congregations have more or less internalised that sensibility.

But for denominations or congregations that claim to long for growth it must be difficult for members to feel totally at ease with any format. They have to tolerate possibly unwelcome innovations brought in as a way to create growth or tackle decline, while the routinisation of certain styles is going to create dissatisfaction among those who like excitement, or others who just don't like what things have morphed into.

To give up on all these changes as a church, though, is probably to accept smallness and/or decline, and frustrated congregations probably need to discuss this, so they can make the decisions that are suitable for them. Note that I'm not saying innovative churches don't also decline or remain small. It's more a question of psychology, of the kinds of goals congregations have.


quote:

I do worry about innovation for innovations sake and some of the liturgy-lite aspects of this process because I tend to think it ultimately dilutes the substance and content as well as the outward form.

I'm not convinced that traditional liturgies necessarily lead to traditional 'substance' when it comes to personal theology. In fact, I suspect that for many of us they become more important as our own theology becomes less orthodox. But they do bring a greater sense of our cultural connection with the past.

The truth, ISTM, is that these days almost all of us, whatever form of worship we go for, are likely to be less orthodox than the words on our lips proclaim us to be.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that in our increasingly post-Christian and secularised context any form of Christian worship, church service or activity is going to need a lot more 'unpacking'.

People I know who are involved in choirs in quite traditional settings tell me that increasingly the people coming in for christenings, weddings, funerals and so on are unfamiliar with even the most familiar of traditional hymns. The whole thing is alien to them.

So, yes, in principle I can see the point of Fresh Expressions and don't have an issue with the motivation. If I'm pissing on it then I am doing so in a friendly fashion - if that makes sense. I'm trying to test the level of hiss and to see if it sparks.

[Biased]

I'd certainly like to take up Karl's point about engaging with those who have gone, or are going, down this particular route and he's entirely right that I should do that before pointing my pecker at the flames.

Or, preferably, instead of doing so ...

Most of what I've heard is anecdotal or from what I've read online and elsewhere.

I've been deliberately provocative on this thread so far. What I would say though is:

- I don't think that Fresh Expressions are, in and of themselves, necessarily whacky or some kind of dilution of the received tradition.

- That I've been intrigued by some elements of it that I've seen online, such as the idea of 'curatorial' worship ie. curating material for wider use and so on. Ok, so that's a buzz word and we are all 'curators' now but I like the concept.

- I can see that Fresh Expressions can provide a dialogue and creative challenge to the way things 'have always been done' ... and so on.

So, yes, those are the positives.

No church, movement or tendency is without its failings, nutters and experiments that fizzle out ...

I've heard a few anecdotal stories of hard-working, well-meaning and sadly unsupported Fresh Expressions leaders who've ended up with a load of loonies in their congregations ... but that can happen in 'regular' churches too, of course.

But the issue that does baffle me is this issue of 'cultural relevance'. I can understand that for particular language groups or affinity groups or even age-ranges but I dunno ... it's a concept that doesn't sit well with me.

I mean, over in Texas you get Cowboy Churches and so on ... ok, so they do have real cowboys in Texas so perhaps that's appropriate - but bloody hell ...

Ok, so what might be 'culturally relevant' to me as a middle-aged, liberally-minded Guardian-reading graduate isn't going to be so to the blue-rinse set nor to my own kids necessarily - aged 20 and 18. But so what? I've got plenty of things I can do that are 'culturally relevant' for someone like me - why should I expect church to tick all my culturally relevant boxes?

I understand that I'd probably feel very different if I were a recent migrant or not from the mainstream culture here and so on and so forth.

But why should I expect this, that or the other church to be full of people who read the same books as me, listen to the same music as I do, eat the same food etc etc?

I don't get that aspect.

Sure, I understand that the old medieval parish system is bust and that people gather according to like-mindedness and shared interests these days - but how the holy hell are we supposed to go about engineering churches that are directly relevant in every conceivable way with, say:

- Left-handed plumbers who drink lager.

- Goths.

- LBGT people (assuming they are all culturally homogenous which they aren't).

- Silver-surfers.

- Antiques Roadshow viewers.

- Birdwatchers.

The list goes on ...

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cross-posted with SvitlanaV2:

Ok, I get what you're saying, however in my experience most older charismatics are very aware of traditional forms of worship and are clinging onto the apparently 'newer' forms (or what was new for them in the 1970s and 1980s) out of nostalgia for their youth or because they think that to abandon or modify that in some way would imply some kind of failure or a regression to what they were reacting against.

By older charismatics, I mean 40+ and up to those in their 70s.

I also accept that adherence to traditional liturgical forms does not, in and of itself, guarantee small o orthodoxy on a personal level. However, at least with those you do get small o orthodox theology laid out in liturgical form - in a way that you might not be able to guarantee in all Fresh Expressions contexts.

That's fine, if, like the Quakers, you sit loosely by creedal statements and formularies. But for those of us who do feel those creedal aspects are important, it does represent a worrying development.

It all depends on where you're coming from, of course.

All worship is some kind of 3-D representation of what those engaged in it believe - or are supposed to believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

When I first attended an Orthodox service I thought, 'Goodness me, this is strange but I can see that it is some kind of representation/presentation of Nicene-Chalcedonian theology in liturgical form.'

What concerns me about some - but by no means all - Fresh Expressions worship is that rather than expressing small o orthodox belief/worship in a culturally relevant way (whatever that means) it could end up simply expressing the subjective values and interests of the particular niche group which is engaged with it - be it a motor-bike gang, a bunch of archaeologists or people named Trevor who like to watch Top Gear ...

That's my concern.

--------------------
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 cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
how the holy hell are we supposed to go about engineering churches that are directly relevant in every conceivable way with, say:

- Left-handed plumbers who drink lager.

- Goths.

- LBGT people (assuming they are all culturally homogenous which they aren't).

- Silver-surfers.

- Antiques Roadshow viewers.

- Birdwatchers.

The list goes on ...

I'm sorry, who said you are obliged to do all those things?

Fresh Expressions are not about doing things that you, Gamaliel happen to approve of. If those groups want to organise their own forms of church, the only question is whether you are going to do anything to help or just piss all over them - using your rather unnecessary phrase.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

*kof* Orthodoxy *kof*

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608

 - Posted      Profile for DonLogan2   Email DonLogan2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gamaliel – “People like us churches”? Is that not just a regular church, sit, stand, sing, pray, in a certain way then return to middle-class home?
Please do yourself a favour before you make a fool of yourself and read up a bit more about fresh expressions, what you describe above is not a fresh expression. They are not “Emergent” as many people seem to think, they are not messy church etc. I`m sick of people making offhand comments about something they clearly know a little about and then profess to know the lot just because they have been around the block a bit.

--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "

Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

*kof* Orthodoxy *kof*
I can't speak for Orthodoxy, having little experience. However, I can speak for Anglicanism, where this fundamental error is being made in certain circles, and the death-nell is becoming audible.

--------------------
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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


What concerns me about some - but by no means all - Fresh Expressions worship is that rather than expressing small o orthodox belief/worship in a culturally relevant way (whatever that means) it could end up simply expressing the subjective values and interests of the particular niche group which is engaged with it - be it a motor-bike gang, a bunch of archaeologists or people named Trevor who like to watch Top Gear ...

That's my concern.

You might say it's unfortunate, but I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people. When you see a church that's able to do this you have to have admiration. It represents a lot of hard work, and it doesn't happen by accident, unless there are some very fortuitous external factors.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
Gamaliel – “People like us churches”? Is that not just a regular church, sit, stand, sing, pray, in a certain way then return to middle-class home?
Please do yourself a favour before you make a fool of yourself and read up a bit more about fresh expressions, what you describe above is not a fresh expression. They are not “Emergent” as many people seem to think, they are not messy church etc. I`m sick of people making offhand comments about something they clearly know a little about and then profess to know the lot just because they have been around the block a bit.

I'd see this as a 'fair call' DonLogan2 if someone could demonstrate to me:

1. That Fresh Expressions churches are in any way less middle-class than 'regular' forms of church. I suspect they aren't but would happy to be proven wrong.

2. If you'd read my comments where I expressed approval of some aspects of what I'd seen of Fresh Expressions on-line. And I have made some positive comments in and amongst my piss-takery.

@mr cheesy, the pissing all over things comments came in response in an accusation from Karl Liberal-Backslider. I didn't coin the phrase, I was simply recycling it.

But yes - fair points - it ain't anything to do with what cranky old Gamaliel approves of disapproves of ... that's no more culturally relevant than whatever it is Fresh Expressions churches do in order to become 'culturally relevant.'

I'm sorry to be cynical but I can't get over this thing that 'cultural relevance' is in the eye of the beholder.

We could parse this as follows:

My church is culturally-relevant because I like it.

You church is culturally-irrelevant because I don't like it.

I'm struggling to see how it can boil down to anything more sophisticated than that. But I'm open to correction.

@Mousethief and Thunderbunk ... it seems to me that the appeal of Orthodoxy in the West is largely down to some impression - real or imagined - that it somehow transcends any need to be 'culturally relevant'. It's somewhat counter-cultural in some ways but taps into some elements of the zeitgeist in others ... not so much in appealing to post-modernist sensibilities but to what one might call - to borrow a phrase from an Orthodox priest I know - 'supramodern' sensibilities.

I'm still trying to get the measure of all that.

In response to DonLogan2's challenge, though - yes, I can understand why it would piss you off if all you heard from people who aren't involved with Fresh Expressions is, 'Oh, it's all about Messy Church and poster paints, isn't it?' or 'I've been round the block a few times, sunshine. You can't tell me ...'

So yes, apologies for that. I was joffing to some extent.

So pray tell us then, how it works in your particular instance and why it doesn't deserve the concern or criticism I've expressed here.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:

Fresh Expressions are not about doing things that you, Gamaliel happen to approve of. If those groups want to organise their own forms of church, the only question is whether you are going to do anything to help or just piss all over them - using your rather unnecessary phrase.
Sorry to double-post. If Fresh Expressions are supposed to be helping by engaging in critical - but constructive - dialogue with 'regular' forms of church, then could it not be that my pissing all over them might not be helpful in some way? It could challenge or provoke them to explain more fully what they are all about, for instance.

It may help them to avoid some of the pitfalls that those of us who've been around the block and banged our shins a few times have encountered.

It could actually help them.

It depends how it's done.

Equally, if they pissed back at me then that might help me too.

I'll acknowledge I've been overly dismissive on this thread and I am genuinely interested to hear how Fresh Expressions is making a difference and what benefits can be gained from such an approach.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but how the holy hell are we supposed to go about engineering churches that are directly relevant in every conceivable way with, say:

- Left-handed plumbers who drink lager.

- Goths.

- LBGT people (assuming they are all culturally homogenous which they aren't).

- Silver-surfers.

- Antiques Roadshow viewers.

- Birdwatchers.

The list goes on ...

I think Nadia Bolz-Weber has made a start with House for All Sinners and Saints

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608

 - Posted      Profile for DonLogan2   Email DonLogan2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@ Gamaliel
I appreciate your apology, thank you.

1 – This place is not middle class in the slightest, go onto google maps and set the controls to Tulloch Square, Perth, Scotland. Drop the wee man onto Tulloch Terrace/Square at the corner nearest Primrose Crescent and peruse the vista. The lovely church you see is the Free Church of Scotland, not Tulloch Net. I have to say that the scaffies (street cleaners) have been busy as mostly there is a carpet of scratch cards, cans and other litter across the grass etc. At the opposite end to the COOP is Paul`s chippie next to that is TN nestled next to the kebab shop. Their story is HERE, but needs updated. Here`s the Facebook page. The lady on the right I know well and was recently widowed, she used to come in for a cuppie, but after her husbands death came in to ask for help and support. She has lived in the local area for around 40 years and in that time had not been to church as when they moved there the church they attended just cut all ties. I think the photo shows how much she has benefitted from being a member of a worshiping community. There are people with mental ill-health issues who have benefitted from the social contact that it provides. The local area is far from middle class and (imho) worship is 5 days a week.

2 – Not sure if I can demonstrate anything from this as it seems to be a statement.

“…how it works in your particular instance…” Well it doesn`t, anymore. I have worked there, but I work in the neighbouring area (parish?) however I like to keep contact with the people there and I feel that by supporting them just by popping over for a cuppie and a catch up I am showing them that I have not turned my back on them and that they are valued.

Concern and criticism are fair and robust ways of testing fresh expressions (and conventional church) and over the past twelve years it has been tested! At the start listening was crucial in finding out what was required of the people at that time and this has changed with the people of the area and the various things that have happened in the area which change the context. At one stage colonialism looked like it was going to raise its head but that was quickly stopped.
You have mentioned counter cultural and I would say that TN is both cultural and counter cultural. It is cultural as it is steeped in the culture of the past twelve years and a congregation of well-meaning middle class Christians have not been parachuted in to provide control over the steering wheel. It is counter cultural as the area is not very community minded, yet daily people pass the shop front and see people who are happy to be members of a community that is known as Christian no matter what others think.
Twelve years is quite a test for any project when funders want outcomes, even more so when local churches want only to know about bums on seats.

It is missional, contextual, formational and ecclesial. It serves those outside the church, listens to people where they are. Disciples are made by journeying with them (Acts 8: 26ff) and it forms a church rather than bridging to/from another.

--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "

Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people.

In a society where the consumer is king and finding satisfaction for oneself is paramount, this is inevitable. I regret it, both because Christians ought to be people who challenge the surrounding culture, and because churches ought to draw people from several cultures together (in fact this would be a wonderful testimony to the Gospel).

The only way to change it would be to decree that there should only be one, ecumenical, church in a locality, that churches should be 10 miles apart, and that anyone who travels more than 5.1 miles to church should be clapped in irons.

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In which case, Baptist Trainfan, you're advocating a return to pre-Reformation conditions where there was only one 'Catholic' (for which read 'ecumenical' or 'catholic' as in all-encompassing) Church per community.

As you know, that was also the model carried over by the Magisterial Reformers and which applied to the Church of England at the outset (or the Scottish Kirk, come to that).

So, as a Dissenter and a Baptist you'd be clapped in irons immediately ... thereby hoisting yourself with your own petard.

[Big Grin]

More seriously, @DonLogan2 - thanks for sharing your thoughts and the example from your particular community. I'm always impressed with initiatives of that kind, so please don't think I'm out to carp or criticise. What matters, ultimately, is the effect it's having on people in the community and what you guys are doing is clearly proving beneficial for the people you are reaching out to ...

If Fresh Expression forms of church do that, then great, more power to their (and your) elbows.

In general terms though, and I might be completely wrong here, my impression is that some well-intentioned Fresh Expressions initiatives can end up as 'alternative worship' exercises that suit the worship-style preferences of those involved - but then, the same charge could be levelled at many forms of 'regular' church and at cathedrals and so on, of course.

This might be one of those areas where it all depends on the intention as well as the outcome.

--------------------
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
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people.

In a society where the consumer is king and finding satisfaction for oneself is paramount, this is inevitable. I regret it, both because Christians ought to be people who challenge the surrounding culture, and because churches ought to draw people from several cultures together (in fact this would be a wonderful testimony to the Gospel).

The only way to change it would be to decree that there should only be one, ecumenical, church in a locality, that churches should be 10 miles apart, and that anyone who travels more than 5.1 miles to church should be clapped in irons.

I would advocate the same approach to education. And yes, it probably is the only way to get people really interested in the provision for all.

Consumerism as currently practiced is making people critically myopic - critically to the point where society becomes impossible.

--------------------
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
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Backing up a bit, and apropos of thinking aloud ... long before Fresh Expressions had ever been thought up as a term/concept, I was part of a group of people who went to live on a run-down housing estate with a view to reaching-out and creating some kind of Christian presence there.

This was back in 1983/84 and whilst well-intended, it was all rather misconceived and very super-spiritual ... we lacked the resources/know-how to go beyond 'evangelising' in a fairly confrontational way and hadn't thought things through properly.

The pastor had approached the city council asking whether we could do something helpful and they immediately thought, 'Aha, here's how we can fill some empty flats on a run-down estate ...'

In the end, everyone had moved off the estate apart from us as the place had deteriorated to the point where it was unfit for habitation. I still remember the fires, the gangs of fellas tearing out the plumbing and the rats ...

Those of us who didn't have anywhere else to go were re-housed by the council in some blocks of flats on another estate. Interestingly, from that point on, things did sort of 'take-off' evangelistically and we also became part and parcel of the community for a time. Looking back, with the proper support, we could easily have had a distinct and separate church in that area - rather than expecting converts and contacts to come along to our main gatherings elsewhere in town.

Years later, people involved still talk about the lost opportunity and how we had potential local leaders and infrastructure.

Did some of the converts 'last'? Yes, they did. I know several people who came to faith at that time who stuck with it - as well as many more who didn't. We did have a genuine love and concern for people and we did our best - but looking back we didn't have the expertise, self-awareness nor the kind of practical skills required for community action, advocacy or social care.

That wasn't our fault, of course, we had some kind of naive idea that all we had to do was go in and pray, show a genuine interest in people and somehow God would do the rest. That's commendable in one way but pretty darn reckless in another.

The Tulloch example seems a lot more 'grounded' to me and with proper professional support.

--------------------
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
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I would advocate the same approach to education. And yes, it probably is the only way to get people really interested in the provision for all.

And why not food? A commissary on every corner? That's bound to help you build relations with your neighbours, because you'll be eating on benches alongside them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd rather Chesterton's 'three acres and a cow' but take your point Leorning Cniht, but we are seeing consumerism eroding any semblance of community cohesion in some places.

Bags I the Commissar's hat though ...

[Snigger]

But where do we draw the line? It seems to me that in some parts of the US there's a church on every block all competing with the one on the next block ...

Rampant religious consumer capitalism ...

--------------------
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 cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


But where do we draw the line? It seems to me that in some parts of the US there's a church on every block all competing with the one on the next block ...

Rampant religious consumer capitalism ...

Here in my small corner of Wales we have more churches than is sensible.

The other week we went to a Congregational church at the end of our village (a 5 min walk). It turned out that it was in a weird semi-official ecumenical partnership with the Methodists. But, not, apparently, the Methodists 2 minutes away.

When we walked in to say hello at the beginning of the service, the old ladies asked us where we were from. We told them and she said "ah yes, Mabel from the Methodist church said you were there last week..!"

They were about 10 old ladies and gents, the Methodists had about 20, the Baptists (around 3 minute walk away) has maybe 40. There is also a Pentecostal (unknown number of congregation as that's not our thing). Until recently there was also an Anglican church and until the 1990s a Strict Methodist within 2 minutes in the other direction.

2 dead, the others very close to being dead.

[ 13. September 2016, 16:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people.

In a society where the consumer is king and finding satisfaction for oneself is paramount, this is inevitable. I regret it, both because Christians ought to be people who challenge the surrounding culture, and because churches ought to draw people from several cultures together (in fact this would be a wonderful testimony to the Gospel).

The only way to change it would be to decree that there should only be one, ecumenical, church in a locality, that churches should be 10 miles apart, and that anyone who travels more than 5.1 miles to church should be clapped in irons.

Of course, you couldn't stop people from setting up 'illicit' churches in their homes or elsewhere.

The 'counter-cultural' thing only goes so far anyway, because religion is a cultural phenomenon. Christianity has been so successful, it's been argued, precisely because it's so culturally flexible and can adapt to different settings and the demands of different groups.

As you know, the supply-side theorists argue that on the whole, a diversity of churches helps more than it hinders in developing a culture of healthy churches. A church monopoly risks creating congregations that don't feel they have to make much of an effort.

Of course, I'm aware that too much denominational diversity in an area risks creating overprovision, antagonism, and other related problems. There must be various additional factors that determine whether or not the outcome of diversity is majorly positive or negative in a certain district, or even in a whole country.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here in my small corner of Wales we have more churches than is sensible.

My impression is that South Wales has witnessed a large number of churches closures in the past few decades. I'm sure the process isn't over yet.

[ 13. September 2016, 16:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, as a Dissenter and a Baptist you'd be clapped in irons immediately ... thereby hoisting yourself with your own petard.

The thought had indeed occurred to me - sand I wasn't suggesting this as a realistic option, but merely to make a point.

As you very well know!

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wasn't suggesting this as a realistic option, but merely to make a point.

As you very well know!

Likewise in most respects. I'm really not sure, however, how love of neighbour and other vital Christian concepts can be revived as realities, and the obsession with marketing can be put back in its box.

--------------------
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
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472

 - Posted      Profile for Fr Weber   Email Fr Weber   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Were there other variations (before 1054) that flourished then were killed off by the powers that be, and their very memories were suppressed? This gets into serious whackdoodle conspiracy territory. What we see in the real record is parts being tweaked or dropped or added or fiddled with in fairly small chunks.

So you don't agree this happened with the Cathars? I'm only bringing them up as being quite different to the (for sake of discussion, the pre-schism) norm and that they were systematically eliminated. There seem to have been quite a few other groups similarly stamped out by the RCC.
We don't know that the liturgy of the Cathars was any different in shape than that of the RCC at the time. In fact, all the evidence we actually have indicates that the shape of the Eucharistic liturgy is consistent from very early times (Justin Martyr is mid-2nd c.) and across the breadth of Christendom both Eastern and Western.

And although the Reformers changed details of the Eucharist, the general shape is still the same from Luther to Cranmer to Calvin to Bucer.

So notionally, it is certainly possible that the liturgical practices of the Cathars were vastly different to those of the Catholics, and that they completely did away with the inherited template of Christian liturgy--but there's no actual evidence to support that contention.

--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."

--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM

Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

*kof* Orthodoxy *kof*
I can't speak for Orthodoxy, having little experience. However, I can speak for Anglicanism, where this fundamental error is being made in certain circles, and the death-nell is becoming audible.
Just saying. Change to our Divine Liturgy (Sunday eucharistic service) is notoriously glacial. Yet we're not driving people away in droves. Come for the worship, stay for the truth.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I would advocate the same approach to education. And yes, it probably is the only way to get people really interested in the provision for all.

And why not food? A commissary on every corner? That's bound to help you build relations with your neighbours, because you'll be eating on benches alongside them.
And why not? We're going to get a taco truck on every corner here.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
We don't know that the liturgy of the Cathars was any different in shape than that of the RCC at the time. In fact, all the evidence we actually have indicates that the shape of the Eucharistic liturgy is consistent from very early times (Justin Martyr is mid-2nd c.) and across the breadth of Christendom both Eastern and Western.

Firstly if you look back you'll see that the discussion wasn't about liturgy but about an ur-form introduced by Mousethief.

Secondly, it is very unlikely that the Cathars copied the RCC liturgy in the way you are suggesting given that they didn't believe in sacraments and refused to participate in the eucharist.

Third, my point stands because the Cathars clearly didn't match the standard ur practices as introduced above. Their liturgy, such as they had, must have necessarily have been quite different.

quote:
And although the Reformers changed details of the Eucharist, the general shape is still the same from Luther to Cranmer to Calvin to Bucer.
That's in the eye of the beholder. And since there have been many groups down the ages, and particularly since the reformation who do not follow a pattern of liturgy for the eucharist, an impossible assertion to support.

quote:
So notionally, it is certainly possible that the liturgical practices of the Cathars were vastly different to those of the Catholics, and that they completely did away with the inherited template of Christian liturgy--but there's no actual evidence to support that contention.
Well, other than everything we know about the Cathars pointing to the fact that they've totally rejected the RCC doctrine and inserted their own, no.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know if I'm right, but I've an idea that most pre-Reformation break-away groups tended to substitute something else for the Eucharist or developed their own pastiche versions.

That certainly seemed to happen with some of the often bizarre break-away sects that later emerged in Russia. They would parody the Orthodox pattern only with the addition of somewhat transgressive practices such as - at the extremes, mass flagellation and orgies ...

Whether the Cathars did or didn't adopt some form of eucharistic practice doesn't have any bearing on MT's idea of some kind of ur-liturgy.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a reasonably standard pattern emerging across the Christian world at an early stage - with variations across regions and cultures. That's not to suggest they would have been identical in 3rd century Syria, say, to those in 3rd century Spain. But they would have been recognisable to each other and held features in common.

Also, the idea that non-conformist Protestants don't have a fairly standardised form of liturgical or eucharistic practice isn't the case either. You'd pretty much know what you were going to get if you attended a communion service with the Brethren or if you went to a communion service at a Baptist church in the UK.

I'm not saying that a 3rd century Spanish Eucharist would have been identical to one held at Santiago de Compostela today, nor that one in 3rd century Aleppo would be exactly like a Syrian Orthodox one today.

But they would all share characteristics with the broad pattern described by Justin Martyr. I don't doubt that they were more informal, with less bling and the kind of baroque twiddles and flourishes associated with later iterations, but the underlying architecture was developing by that time. It didn't just start in the 4th century.

The thing is, however we worship we develop a pattern. Get over it already. The Quakers have a pattern. The Pentecostals have a pattern. Everyone does.

--------------------
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 cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know if I'm right, but I've an idea that most pre-Reformation break-away groups tended to substitute something else for the Eucharist or developed their own pastiche versions.

That certainly seemed to happen with some of the often bizarre break-away sects that later emerged in Russia. They would parody the Orthodox pattern only with the addition of somewhat transgressive practices such as - at the extremes, mass flagellation and orgies ...

Whether the Cathars did or didn't adopt some form of eucharistic practice doesn't have any bearing on MT's idea of some kind of ur-liturgy.

Once again, the ur thing was not about liturgy but about form: meeting together on Sunday for singing, bible reading and teaching.

And the point that I'm making is that various groups-which-didn't-survive didn't follow this form, not just that they've invented their own forms of liturgy. These groups had much more regular meetings, didn't involve preaching, didn't read the bible, didn't do singing, or didn't meet up regularly or only on special occasions.

quote:
I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a reasonably standard pattern emerging across the Christian world at an early stage - with variations across regions and cultures. That's not to suggest they would have been identical in 3rd century Syria, say, to those in 3rd century Spain. But they would have been recognisable to each other and held features in common.

Also, the idea that non-conformist Protestants don't have a fairly standardised form of liturgical or eucharistic practice isn't the case either. You'd pretty much know what you were going to get if you attended a communion service with the Brethren or if you went to a communion service at a Baptist church in the UK.

Utter drivel. About the only thing in common across these groups is that they do something with some food and some drink and more-or-less associate it with something in the bible.

Of course there are plenty of other forms that the thing has taken down the years; as a meal, rejected altogether (as per the Quakers), etc and so on.

Yes, in a sense the non-liturgical churches are clearly operating a form of liturgy if they're following accepted behaviours and using accepted words. But that's a very long way from saying that the thing is the same across widely disparate groups, when it clearly isn't. And very clearly those within and between the groups think they're doing different things, hence the lack of agreement as to the thing that each are doing.

quote:
I'm not saying that a 3rd century Spanish Eucharist would have been identical to one held at Santiago de Compostela today, nor that one in 3rd century Aleppo would be exactly like a Syrian Orthodox one today.
Not identical and in many ways not even vaguely the same.

quote:
But they would all share characteristics with the broad pattern described by Justin Martyr. I don't doubt that they were more informal, with less bling and the kind of baroque twiddles and flourishes associated with later iterations, but the underlying architecture was developing by that time. It didn't just start in the 4th century.
Again, you're trying to push things that are not the same into the same group on the basis that they're all using food and drink.

quote:
The thing is, however we worship we develop a pattern. Get over it already. The Quakers have a pattern. The Pentecostals have a pattern. Everyone does.
That's not in question. The point that you're trying to assert is that the patterns are variations on the same pattern. They're not.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, it's not utter drivel.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that how Christians in 3rd century Spain were doing anything substantially different to those in 3rd century Syria.

You can't prove that they weren't any more than I can 100% prove that they were.

I also think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I can't speak for Mousethief. He can speak for himself.

It could be that I haven't articulated things as clearly as I could have done.

I'm not saying that everything was 100% identical between 3rd century Spain and 3rd century Syria when it came to how Christian worship was conducted.

What I am saying is that a broad pattern had probably emerged by that time and it had particular components in common right across the board.

Sure, there would have been regional variations, variations of custom and emphasis, but broadly speaking the pattern would be recognisable.

I don't see why that is so contentious.

I'm not suggesting that a particular 'ur-liturgy' was written down as some kind of official encyclical at 3.15pm on a Wednesday afternoon on 23rd August 175AD and immediately became 'binding' on all Christian congregations worldwide - whether in Egypt, Syria, Greece, Gaul or wherever else.

What I am suggesting is that a recognisable pattern had emerged by a relatively early date.

Cut me some slack. I don't believe that St Luke painted the first icon of the Virgin Mary nor that what became the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom was already firmly in place centuries before he was born ... nor even that St John Chrysostom had a great deal to do with the Liturgy that bears his name ...

Why does it matter that groups like the Cathars departed from the norm, or even that they may have been groups, now lost to history, who did things in a different kind of way?

So what?

Arius didn't believe in the Trinity. What does tht tell us? At the very least it tells us that there were dissenting voices. Fine. But am I going to become Arian simply because Arius didn't toe what was to become a particular party-line?

[Roll Eyes]

I'm not saying that Quakers shouldn't do what Quakers do nor that Baptists or Methodists or anyone else shouldn't do what they do either.

But what I am saying is that a basic pattern for Christian worship did evolve and did acquire something of a consensus. I don't see what's so contentious about that.

You can see echoes and elements of that consensus across most Christian groups today, for goodness sake. The reason I was able to 'clock' and recognise aspects of the Orthodox Liturgy when I first encountered it was because I could spot parallels with features of the Anglican and other liturgies I was more familiar with.

I can understand Americans when they speak and write English. They may use different idioms but it's still English.

You may as well say that American English and UK English bear no relation to one another and share no common 'ur-ancestor'. That would be equally as bollocks as your challenge to my post.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, mr cheesy.

In relation to non-conformist Protestant styles of service I was referring to 'form' rather than belief. To be fair, perhaps I should have made that clearer.

As Mousethief wrote, upthread I think, the fact that a Seventh Day Adventist group meeting on a Saturday has a similar form of service to that of a Presbyterian one meeting on a Sunday, it doesn't follow that their beliefs are identical.

What I said was that you're pretty much sure what you are going to get if you rolled up at a Brethren breaking of bread service or to a Baptist communion service ... thinking primarily of the format rather than any similarities in terms of belief. Essentially, both would be 'memorialist' in the Zwinglian radical reformation sense - but that doesn't necessarily imply that they'll be on the same page in other ways.

Now, I really don't see, though, what is so contentious about suggesting that similar worship formats existed across the whole of the Christianised world from a relatively early date. I'm sure you wouldn't have been able to tell much difference in terms of outward form between an Arian service and a Trinitarian one - you'd have to pick up the cues and clues in terms of what was said and sung.

The frescoes at Ravenna are said to be more Arian than Trinitarian in terms of themes. I wouldn't have been able to tell that simply by looking at them. I need commentary and interpretation to help me with that.

Perhaps I've been living under the shadow of the Orthodox for too long but it does amuse me how many Protestants - and I think we see this with Mudfrog to an extent with his Salvationist viewpoint - seem to go up like scalded cats as soon as anyone suggests a modicum of continuation between a 3rd century Syrian congregation say, and the Orthodox Church around 1100 ... or between a 3rd century Spanish congregation and a Roman Catholic church around 1100 ...

No, no, no ... that can't possibly be the case! Shock, horror ... They must have been very, very different ... I can't allow it!

Of course there's a connection/continuation.

What developed into Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy or the Copts and Armenians etc didn't suddenly spring out of nowhere around the time of Constantine ...

I'm not for a moment suggesting that they all used identical liturgies nor that they were completely uniform in their beliefs ... the whole thing was under development, work in progress ... that's why there were the various Councils and so on.

All I'm suggesting is that there was a discernible and recognisable pattern comparatively early on - and Justin Martyr attests to that. It doesn't mean that there weren't groups somewhere or other who did things differently to how Justin describes.

Things could have worked out differently.

Arius might have 'won' for instance ...

But we are where we are and we've got what we've got.

However we cut it - and yes there's a lot of diversity - there are only so many ways you can conduct some kind of church meeting or service with the elements we've got to work with - some broad principles and indications from the scriptures, a shed-load of tradition (whether we like it or not) ...

The Quaker silence is pretty radical. But as far as what anyone else does it all seems a variation on a theme to me ... irrespective of the differences in belief there might be. There are still some songs or chants, still some prayers, still something done with bread and wine (alcoholic or otherwise), still somebody preaching, teaching or waffling on ...

Short of us all dressing up in zebra costumes I'm not sure what else we could do that breaks out of that basic pattern and format. Wear helicopter blades on our hats?

--------------------
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 cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


What I am saying is that a broad pattern had probably emerged by that time and it had particular components in common right across the board.

And I'm saying it only looks like that because you are a) looking back from a position today that looks like that and b) those who were different in the past didn't survive.

There is no "broad pattern".

quote:
Sure, there would have been regional variations, variations of custom and emphasis, but broadly speaking the pattern would be recognisable.
Nope, I doubt that the pattern used by the Amish would be recognised by the pattern used by the Roman Catholics and I'm pretty darn sure that there are Calvinist Baptists would wouldn't consider what the Orthodox do to be in any way the same as what they do.

You can keep saying it until you're blue in the face, you're calling something which is widely divergent variations on the same thing, and I am saying that they're widely divergent and not the same at all.

quote:
I don't see why that is so contentious.

I'm not suggesting that a particular 'ur-liturgy' was written down as some kind of official encyclical at 3.15pm on a Wednesday afternoon on 23rd August 175AD and immediately became 'binding' on all Christian congregations worldwide - whether in Egypt, Syria, Greece, Gaul or wherever else.

What I am suggesting is that a recognisable pattern had emerged by a relatively early date.

And I'm disagreeing with you. I'm saying that there is clear and compelling differences in even these basics from the earliest times that we have available, and the thing only looks as different as it does because the outliers were regularly removed from the face-of-the-earth until the reformation. After the reformation all bets were off and things went in wildly different directions.

quote:
Cut me some slack. I don't believe that St Luke painted the first icon of the Virgin Mary nor that what became the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom was already firmly in place centuries before he was born ... nor even that St John Chrysostom had a great deal to do with the Liturgy that bears his name ..
No thanks, I'd rather piss all over you, to reuse your charming image. I think you're wrong.

quote:
Why does it matter that groups like the Cathars departed from the norm, or even that they may have been groups, now lost to history, who did things in a different kind of way?

So what?

Because there is an alternative way to understand history other than saying the Orthodox were always at the centre and that everything else is a mutation from their faithfully maintained tradition. It is entirely plausible that that position represents one of many available patterns which existed in the early church, and which continued to emerge for centuries, which had absolutely nothing to do with the basic pattern discussed.

The Cathars are just one example of a movement which developed from Christianity but which looked quite different. It is a matter of opinion whether that represents an abnormality or whether it is an example of the marketplace of ideas and expressions of Jesus worship which were out there and which the centre decided to destroy because it was such a threat.

quote:
Arius didn't believe in the Trinity. What does tht tell us? At the very least it tells us that there were dissenting voices. Fine. But am I going to become Arian simply because Arius didn't toe what was to become a particular party-line?

[Roll Eyes]

Who said anything about you becoming anything? Arius and Origen and various others had a significant following for a while, are you going to tell me that you know for a fact that they followed something that closely resembles the ur pattern?

quote:
I'm not saying that Quakers shouldn't do what Quakers do nor that Baptists or Methodists or anyone else shouldn't do what they do either.

But what I am saying is that a basic pattern for Christian worship did evolve and did acquire something of a consensus. I don't see what's so contentious about that.

Just keep asserting it and eventually it'll turn out to be true, right Gam?

quote:
You can see echoes and elements of that consensus across most Christian groups today, for goodness sake. The reason I was able to 'clock' and recognise aspects of the Orthodox Liturgy when I first encountered it was because I could spot parallels with features of the Anglican and other liturgies I was more familiar with.
Right, that's not entirely surprising given that both are episcopalian and liturgical churches.

I've sat in Scandinavian evangelical churches and felt like it was an entirely different religion. So what?

quote:
I can understand Americans when they speak and write English. They may use different idioms but it's still English.
Irrelevant.

quote:
You may as well say that American English and UK English bear no relation to one another and share no common 'ur-ancestor'. That would be equally as bollocks as your challenge to my post.
Absolutely nothing to do with anything.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, mr cheesy.

Yeah, why don't you just keep telling me the same thing in a thousand different ways?

quote:
What I said was that you're pretty much sure what you are going to get if you rolled up at a Brethren breaking of bread service or to a Baptist communion service ... thinking primarily of the format rather than any similarities in terms of belief. Essentially, both would be 'memorialist' in the Zwinglian radical reformation sense - but that doesn't necessarily imply that they'll be on the same page in other ways.
Brethren and (at least some) Baptists are not so far apart. Orthodox and Brethren are far enough apart to be unrecognisable as the same thing. And there are plenty of other forms which are further apart than that.

quote:
Perhaps I've been living under the shadow of the Orthodox for too long
You said it.

quote:
Of course there's a connection/continuation.
There is no "of course". I can't be bothered to reply to the rest, it just seems like a regurgitation of what you've already said.

[ 14. September 2016, 14:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You still don't get it.

Read.my.lips.

I did not say that the Orthodox are necessarily at the centre of everything. But the fact that there is a common pattern or order across the RC, Coptic and Orthodox Churches implies at the very least that a common tradition/way of doing things had emerged by the time they went their separate ways.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools