|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Volunteers: criteria for 'allowing' service in worship services
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I'm interested in other Shippies' thoughts on the following (you may want to read to the end for full context, as in some denominations it would be a total non-issue anyway). I know what I think, but want a kind of sanity check/wider viewpoint:
To what extent is it reasonable to expect (require) people to have faith in order to be able to participate in the delivery of a service of collective worship?
If one accepts that it is not unreasonable in principle, how do you go about determining who qualifies as "having faith" and for which roles it does or doesn't matter?
e.g. if one assumes that all volunteers have demonstrated some basic competence in the field they're volunteering for, to what extent would "where they're at spiritually" be a concern for:
- service leaders
- music group leaders (where they are not leading the service, just the band)
- musicians
- instrumentalists
- singers (where they are just band members, not leaders in any way)
- PA operators
- projection/computer operators
- stewards
- greeters
- any other role you can dream up
I'm particularly thinking in the context of a relatively low-church, non-liturgical, non-conformist church here. One where there's a concept of "priesthood of all believers" and where a service will inevitably involve a wide number of people beyond the full-time pastors or any 'church officials' - e.g. musicians, service leaders/'worship leaders', PA, projection, stewarding etc.
I'm not going to say anything further, as I don't want to skew the field too much; I suspect if I did then my sanity check would be largely successful (I hope so, at any rate!).
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think that this is a very difficult question. I'm going to dodge it (sorry!) by suggesting that many of the churches you are thinking of are of the "covenanted community" type, often conversionist in theology, with a fairly well-defined membership boundary - as opposed to the "parish" type of church which has a far more inclusive approach.
This will, I think, mean that these churches are much more likely to see a "faith" qualification as being essential for most of the tasks you mention; while many Anglican churches would (as far as I understand) be quite willing to include (say) choir members or Scout leaders without imposing that caveat, providing that they were not aggressively anti-Church.
I could see some "exclusivist" churches insisting that virtually everyone who has a task be a professing believer, down to the cleaners. (By the way, I think that Greeters/Stewards have a very important and often overlooked role to play, but that's another matter).
[ 13. January 2014, 17:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
If every member of our choir who did not go up for communion on Sundays were to be forced out, we would still have an OK choir, but we would be a shadow of our former selves. That would mean forcing out half of the staff singers and a few volunteers as well- talented people who just like singing choral music but don't have the time or sight reading skills to be staff singers elsewhere. I suspect this is probably the case at many other urban churches that aspire to high choral musical standards. If you want high quality choral music, you can't afford to be picky about your singer's beliefs.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
A pulse...maybe. Will be able to provide a more serious response that your question deserves later.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
To what extent is it reasonable to expect (require) people to have faith in order to be able to participate in the delivery of a service of collective worship?
I think the problem is with the idea that a church service is 'delivered' by someone - i.e. that you have those who give and those who receive. I dislike this idea, but it goes back a long way and I think almost all churches have been affected by it.
Music is so central to the worshipping life of the church that I feel music leaders should be believers. However, its very dominance and prestige makes it attractive to those who might otherwise have little interest in church. There aren't many places where good performers can regularly use their skills publicly unless they go professional, so it's unsurprising if some (not all!!) folk in worship bands or acclaimed church choirs are there mainly for the music and less so for God....
Most denominations limit certain roles to church members, i.e. to people who have already formally assented to the teachings and expectations of the church. But for other roles there must be some leeway, especially if a large number of non-members are regularly attending worship, and seem to be growing in faith. Moreover, for many newcomers being able to serve in a visible way helps them to be socialised into church life and so nurtures them into faith. This is what's called 'belonging before believing'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Personally I would be fairly easy-going about the faith of musicians and other 'associated' people, but much stricter about those whose role involved teaching of any kind - in very rough terms!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Snags: To what extent is it reasonable to expect (require) people to have faith in order to be able to participate in the delivery of a service of collective worship?
There's no such requirement in my church. In fact, if an atheist offered to lead a service, we'd be really interested to find out what would happen.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Might volunteering or being 'voluntold' to help be a mechanism via which someone moves into faith or becomes a little more faithful? Just sayin'
--------------------
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
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
To what extent is it reasonable to expect (require) people to have faith in order to be able to participate in the delivery of a service of collective worship?
I think the problem is with the idea that a church service is 'delivered' by someone - i.e. that you have those who give and those who receive. I dislike this idea, but it goes back a long way and I think almost all churches have been affected by it.
Valid point, and one I'd agree with and have actually fought hard on in my fellowship. Sloppy wording on my part in trying to convey the area I was wanting to focus on in this instance.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well, for us CofE evangelicals, in theory "service leaders" and more particularly preachers ought to be licensed by the bishop (which usually means they will have gone through a 3-year course to train as a Reader). But there is a let-out clause that if there is no licensed person to take a service the churchwardens can either do it themselves or ask someone else to do it. Because its their job to make sure the church is open and public worship happens. And there is another let-out clause for the incumbent (i.e. the vicar)
quote:
The sermon shall be preached by a minister, deaconess, reader or lay worker duly authorized in accordance with Canon Law. At the invitation of the minister having the cure of souls another person may preach with the permission of the bishop of the diocese given either in relation to the particular occasion or in accordance with diocesan directions.
Which is wide enough to drive a whole coach-trip of occasional preachers though. So in practice anyone the incumbent wants to preach, can preach. And in our church at least, and I suspect most other parishes, that would require some public Christian commitment. (Always excepting things like someone coming from a charity we support talking to us about their work - but that's not really preaching I suppose). As to what form that commitment would take, that will vary from parish to parish and vicar to vicar. I know some places where you will pretty much only get invited if you can sign up to the exact flavour of doctrine that the vicar prefers (I can think of one where you would have to be a Calvinist, and another where you would have to be an OTT Anglo-catholic - and neither of them is likely to let a woman speak) Other churches would allow a greater diversity of opinion (and gender) into their pulpits. Though I doubt if many CofE parishes would impose any kind of explicit faith test. It would likely be more about whether or not the vicar had confidence in you.
The same rules would probably go for "worship leaders", for those churches that have them. That is someone who stands up in front and leads the congregation in singing and supposedly unscripted prayer.
Instrumentalists and choir leaders though, maybe not. In practice most parishes will take who they can get.
And as for greeters and operators of sound and video equipment and makers of tea and arrangers of flowers - I suspect that if you turn up and ask to be on the rota you will get on to the rota. Maybe some of the more advanced evo-charismatic places with giant sound systems and multi-channel mixing desks might look for some basic competence before they let you touch their knobs. But most places will be happy to get a volunteer of any sort.
The CofE as a whole has rules about what preachers and leaders of worship ought to do as well:
(Canon B.18.2)
quote:
It is the minister's responsibility to have a good understanding of the forms of service used and he shall endeavour to ensure that the worship offered glorifies God and edifies the people.
(Canon B.18.3)
quote:
The preacher shall endeavour with care and sincerity to minister the word of truth, to the glory of God and to the edification of the people.
Which at least heavily imply that the preachers and other ministers are doing from a Christian standpoint!
I know some CofE dioceses have training courses for "occasional preachers" that are less intensive than those for Readers. For example according to this web page from the Diocese of Guildford there is a nine-week course for occasional preachers, who are then to preach only in their own parish and only up to five times a year. I'm not sure I approve to be honest - I think if a church wants someone to preach it is entitled to call them to preach, training course or no training course. If the church - I mean the actual church, the local church, the congregation and its ministers, not what you might call the virtual church of dioceses and denominations - thinks one of its members could do with a training course to help them preach or liturgise better, then in the CofE that's what the Reader's course is for. I have a suspicion that occasional preachers courses are perhaps a symptom of creeping clericalism. Some parishes tend to treat Readers almost as if they are ordained clergy (and maybe some Readers are flattered by that and get a bit self-important). Not helped by the current fashion for credentialism which has made Reader education into a three or four year course often leading to a certificate from a university, and not that different from what ordination candidates have to go through. Readers and other lay preachers ought to be a witness to the Biblical doctrine that preaching and teaching and leading worship are gifts given to the church by the Holy Spirit through the whole people of God, not just a clerical faction with the church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ken
Most preachers in the British Methodist Church (the tradition I know best) are lay, and it's interesting that the ordained clergy must all start off as lay preachers, so you could say that lay preaching is a way for volunteers to prove their faith and orthodoxy before moving into ordained ministry (though most don't make that move, of course).
I'm open to correction, but I understand that at every Methodist service an ordained or fully accredited lay preacher must be present, even if they're not preaching. This is to ensure that visiting preachers from other denominations or untrained/partially trained Methodist speakers preach nothing that's contrary to Methodist doctrines. So the theological orthodoxy (however defined...) of every lay preacher is very important.
Having listened to a great many Methodist lay preachers I must say that they are very consistent in quality and theological content, so the training process is highly effective from that point of view.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It is a question of whether your choir is musicians who happen to be involved in leading worship or worshippers who happen to be involved in leading music?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
look for some basic competence before they let you touch their knobs.
That was deliberate, wasn't it?
I'm inclined to take a "do not make windows into men's souls" approach to this. I'd feel uneasy about worship being led by anyone I knew didn't believe, but I'm not going to pry to deeply in order to find out whether they do or not.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Thanks all, very helpful.
I don't want to go into too much context, because I'm not really anonymous on here and I wouldn't want anyone reading more into this than is there (very much an aside in a wider situation where I have no particular issues), but to reciprocate ...
What prompted the query was a recent discussion with our pastors and my co-organiser of "Sunday Stuff". It's very hard to put it delicately/not over-state it, but amongst other items, a question was raised as to whether it was appropriate to have folk involved in the the bands (as instrumentalists or singers) where there was some ambiguity on "where they're at".
I find it quite a hard conversation to be part of, as even within the small group where it came up there are some very different understandings of what a Sunday service is and what (or who) it's for. There are also some very different personalities present: between four of us we probably cover quite a lot of the spectrum from "very feelings/emotional" to "very detached/analytical".
So for me it brought up a number of questions, such as:
- who are you (am I) to say that they aren't "worshiping" within their own personality/framework
- is your ability to engage really that compromised by a particular person (who is competent musically) being present in the mix?
- does the fact that they are a faithful and committed member of the group (rehearsals, socials, meetings, regular service, attend when not in the band) not speak to the fact that there is something going on there, even if it's not something that finds an echo in you?
- if those are your criteria, then I'd better stand down immediately, and quite frankly based on what I know, there are services where everyone in this room should have recused themselves from taking part on that occasion!
The whole sense of "pardon?" was compounded by the criteria only appearing to apply to people who are in the bands, with everyone being happy to say "singers and instrumentalists should be at this point (however the hell we define that) spiritually, but it's fine for someone who's actively rejected faith to be involved in e.g. PA because it keeps them in touch with the church and is pastoraly sensitive.
Given that none of the people who may be affected are active leaders (they don't plan the service, choose the content, speak, lead any segments etc.) - they are simply members of the music group - my inclination has always been to encourage participation on the grounds that it's only going to be a good thing. It requires more commitment than just rocking up on Sunday (a lot more, in some cases), and helps build relationship etc. which can only be good in terms of helping them on their 'journey'.
At our shack you don't get to preach, lead or otherwise do anything that shapes the service and the content (excluding open mic prayer times, which are fairly rare and short) unless you're invited to do so by the pastors/leadership in the first place, so ISTM that the basic "good governance" stuff gets covered there.
(Also, JFTR, I have done the responsible thing and raised my concerns within the relevant group, asking here is just an aside to confirm that my understanding of wider custom and practice isn't too far off beam).
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And as for greeters and operators of sound and video equipment and makers of tea and arrangers of flowers - I suspect that if you turn up and ask to be on the rota you will get on to the rota.
Sometimes, you don't even have to ask.....
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
A composer, well-known in this country, when asked in an interview whether he was a Christian, replied that he was when writing sacred music.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Sometimes, you don't even have to ask.....
I was wondering when someone was going to say that.
More seriously though, there are at least three different issues I've encountered on this one.
The first is, 'what should people be allowed to do in church depending on how much in good standing they are, either in their way of life or whether they hold exactly the package of beliefs that the vicar/minister thinks they should have?'. To what extent is a person's way of life or doctrinal position, their responsibility or the church's? How will it reflect on the church's witness if somebody reads the lesson or leads the music who is cohabiting, or, say, in a Baptist Church, does not believe in "believers' baptism only". To what extent should this apply beyond the clergy themselves?
The second, is whether you think there is a fundamental difference between people doing things the front, like playing an organ or in a band, and people doing things at the back, like giving out books or collecting money. This view regards being at the front as more 'the face of the church' than the others. I am not sure personally that I can see that.
It is also a bit much to say to somebody, "we are happy for you to welcome people on our behalf, but that's all".
The third, is whether one believes faith has to come first, or whether practice can lead to faith. If one says that faith must come first, that works before faith are of no value, and what one does after one has believed is how one lives that faith, then those that have not yet made the right profession cannot be full members, or be involved. If one says that evidence demonstrates that lots of people are drawn in by doing things, and only grow into faith later, then the more one can involve people in activities, the better.
With music, this is particularly helpful since a lot of men enjoy playing instruments, and fiddling with the gadgets that enhance sound electrically.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The third, is whether one believes faith has to come first, or whether practice can lead to faith. If one says that faith must come first, that works before faith are of no value, and what one does after one has believed is how one lives that faith, then those that have not yet made the right profession cannot be full members, or be involved. If one says that evidence demonstrates that lots of people are drawn in by doing things, and only grow into faith later, then the more one can involve people in activities, the better.
What happens at my church is that people are welcome to get involved in any of the roles that make the Sunday gathering happen if they are 'in good standing' within the church. We don't have a formal membership structure, so this pretty much means 'committed to a midweek housegroup' with the caveat that some people's life situations (e.g. shift work) might mean they can't be as actively involved in a housegroup as they'd like to be.
I think there's a lot in the principle of belonging before believing, with people drawing nearer to Christ as a result of being welcomed in to a community that is seeking to demonstrate the love of God. So if people have shown commitment to the church then personally I'm fine with them helping out with welcoming, children's work, music, catering etc. etc.
I would say that leadership, teaching (within which I'd include leading children's work teams) and so on should only be done by people who are clearly demonstrating a commitment to Christ (as well as a commitment to the church community) but otherwise let's get people involved as soon as they want that!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
Insofar as preaching is concerned – I’d have thought it difficult to preach effectively if you don’t believe what you are preaching? Same goes for musicians / singers – don’t you need to believe what you are singing / playing?
We also had this debate at a church I once attended as to whether leaders of uniformed organisations (in this case, Girls’ and Boys’ Brigades) should be professed Christians. We decided that regular leaders should be, but not necessarily in the case of people coming in to run a class for a few weeks – they are willing to share their knowledge etc, and that should be encouraged.
Does on need to be a professed Christian to serve tea / coffee? Probably not.
What about reading “the lesson” – if someone who wouldn’t normally read scripture is willing to do so in a service then let them – who knows, some of it might sink in ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Then there’s the issue of “beggars can’t be choosers” – the same church mentioned above had a Sunday School teacher who was living with her (male) partner, but wasn’t married – this was deemed to be acceptable as there was no other volunteers for Sunday School. The fact that she was the daughter of an “influential” couple may or may not have been a factor…
(Of course, that also begs the question of whether living together without being married is inherently sinful, but that’s another thread, and probably another board.)
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I know some places where you will pretty much only get invited if you can sign up to the exact flavour of doctrine that the vicar prefers (I can think of one where you would have to be a Calvinist, and another where you would have to be an OTT Anglo-catholic - and neither of them is likely to let a woman speak) .
A very AC place I used to attend was once criticised for not letting a woman preach - not that there was a bar per se, it just had never come up. This was rectified by the location of and invitation to a particularly "sound" Anglican sister from a nearby priory....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Personally I would be fairly easy-going about the faith of musicians and other 'associated' people, but much stricter about those whose role involved teaching of any kind - in very rough terms!
One problem, though, is that it must be hard to argue for 'the priesthood of all believers' (mentioned in the OP) if only those who 'teach' are truly expected to believe. We can't grumble about congregations who know little theology, don't read their Bibles and feel unprepared to share their faith with others if we also say that only the official preachers and teachers should be expected to understand and accept orthodox Christian teachings.
And regarding music, in many cases it's through the music that many ordinary people get their 'teaching', their theology. Methodists traditionally sang their theology; the CofE with its short sermons must surely also rely on hymns and choral singing to assist in the teaching of doctrine, because most of its churchgoers probably don't belong to small groups. Yes, adults in the pews should go away and do their own reading, etc. but who knows how much they do or what the content is? The average church asks no questions about that. But churches do choose their hymns or hymnbooks based on theological content, which suggests that hymns do have a pedagogical purpose. How can people who don't believe be charged with teaching others through music?
Ironically, I imagine that evangelical churches find this whole topic particularly challenging, because their popularity must be in tension with their desire to maintain standards. Mainstream congregations/denominations, however, are not only more liberal about people's beliefs and lifestyles, but they're almost more desperate for volunteers. This is the impression I get.
[ 14. January 2014, 14:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
The Phantom Flan Flinger: Insofar as preaching is concerned – I’d have thought it difficult to preach effectively if you don’t believe what you are preaching?
A sermon by an atheist about how (s)he sees Christianity could be interesting.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Very interesting, but is that what a sermon is for? How would it serve the purposes of 'worship'?
There should be more dialogue, but it needs to occur in the right contexts. Maybe atheist thinkers could be invited to participate in a series of lectures that are separate from worship services.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Very interesting, but is that what a sermon is for? How would it serve the purposes of 'worship'?
We have a very broad definition of 'worship' anyway. To me personally, it would be something like 'strengthening eachother in our relationship with God, our neighbours and ourselves'. I don't see why 'eachother' would have to exclude atheists. Worship doesn't have to take place in a closed bubble. Submitting what we do to an outside look could definitely be worship to me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
The Phantom Flan Flinger: Insofar as preaching is concerned – I’d have thought it difficult to preach effectively if you don’t believe what you are preaching?
A sermon by an atheist about how (s)he sees Christianity could be interesting.
And you can hear them any day of the week on the BBC, or read them in the non-tabloid newspapers. Or just hang around in a pub and listen to what people are saying. There's no need for us to put such things on in church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
ken: There's no need for us to put such things on in church.
You don't have to.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I know some CofE dioceses have training courses for "occasional preachers" that are less intensive than those for Readers. For example according to this web page from the Diocese of Guildford there is a nine-week course for occasional preachers, who are then to preach only in their own parish and only up to five times a year. I'm not sure I approve to be honest - I think if a church wants someone to preach it is entitled to call them to preach, training course or no training course.
Just FYI I've seen a course like this used for training people like youth and children's workers, who are expected to preach on special occasions when the majority of those present are children/teenagers and their parents (crib service/carol service/parade service etc) or 'give talks' in schools or youth services. I think this is a good thing - these people are not necessarily called to be readers, but a bit of extra training would serve them well - particularly those who have had little, if any, formal training in these areas (but lots of experience doing 'bits and pieces' in volunteer roles).
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SvitlanaV2: Very interesting, but is that what a sermon is for? How would it serve the purposes of 'worship'?
We have a very broad definition of 'worship' anyway. To me personally, it would be something like 'strengthening eachother in our relationship with God, our neighbours and ourselves'. I don't see why 'eachother' would have to exclude atheists. Worship doesn't have to take place in a closed bubble. Submitting what we do to an outside look could definitely be worship to me.
But the atheist speaker wouldn't necessarily have any interest in strengthening your relationship with God, would they?
It's true that some atheists feel fairly positive towards churches as providers of community, social activism, creativity and moral values, etc. so I suppose they might have something encouraging to say about that. You could then have a few hymns about God putting our hands to good use.
But on Sunday morning would anyone want to listen to a Dawkins clone going on and on about how evil and inconsistent the Bible is and how religion causes so much trouble in the world? Well, at least people would feel obliged to sit up and listen. They'd probably want the right of reply though - and that might be a problem. Mainstream church worship in particular is designed not to be controversial, and I don't know if the average minister or lay leader would have the skills or inclination to marshal the lively debate that would result - or perhaps to deal with the spiritual fall-out at a later point....
On a more realistic note, I could imagine a respectful atheist professor of archaeology giving a short talk about an interesting study trip to the Holy Land, or perhaps even an atheist sociologist of religion talking about the challenges facing the churches in 40 years' time. Their words could then be used by a Christian speaker for a short reflection afterwards.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
AndyB
Shipmate
# 10186
|
Posted
I always think that preaching should be classed as part of worship.
Specifically, if what a preacher says does not give glory to God, then it's not worship and it shouldn't be part of a service of worship.
Regarding musicians, I wouldn't have a problem with a non-Christian being part of the choir or band in my church. If they are willing to put themselves under the authority of the musical director, I'm happy to have their skills.
"Leading" is a different question, and I have to reflect that not all organists, for example, are Christians, but in a seller's market, I know that some churches have to take what they can get.
Posts: 149 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
AndyB
You say that preaching is worship and must therefore be conducted by a believer; but if music can be conducted by non-believers that implies that music isn't worship.....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It may be worship, or an aid to worship, depending on who is doing it. Very likely some of those making music will be worshipping and others will be helping others worship, all at the same time.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, I suppose this hybridity, if you like, could equally be true of preaching. For some listeners the sermon might be forgettable, boring, theologically vacuous, or suspect, or downright heretical; it might have an entirely negative effect upon some of the listeners even if it's functional for others. The preacher might sometimes feel worshipful when preaching, and at others times not. A preacher who's secretly lost their faith, or is even openly an atheist, might conceivably offer worshipful preaching depending on their skills, or the nature of the audience being addressed; a fervent believer might conceivably satisfy no one for the same reasons.
In short, whether preaching is 'worship' is perhaps dependent on a variety of factors.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I was in the PCC meeting where we had to approve the hiring of a new verger on the retirement of our old one.
The problem we faced was that because we needed to make the new verger a paid role, rather than voluntary (as we had no internal volunteers), we needed to advertise it and we were told to be very careful over the wording of the job description in order to avoid falling foul of anti-discrimination legislation. We couldn’t state that only Christian could apply for example.
In the end we were approached by someone willing to do the job internally, so it went away, but would we be entitled to reject non-Christians for such a role? I’m not a lawyer but I think there are provisions in the legislation for this kind of thing.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Interesting, my experience of adverts for verger has been that they specify member of CofE or church communion with it. Mostly because often serving and administering communion are part of the role and as being an administrant requires a licence from the bishop, being communicant member is a relevant requirement.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I was in the PCC meeting where we had to approve the hiring of a new verger on the retirement of our old one ...
Not sure about the ins and outs of this. Might it depend on how much of the role is "outward-facing" (i.e. dealing with the public) and therefore considered to be part of the church's ministry?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
