Thread: Get me to the church on time... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025187

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I have been in a number of - mainly Anglican - churches, where the twin questions have been raised of starting the service on time, and people arriving on time to worship.

The church I currently attend normally starts 5 minutes late, or more, and people turn up late even then. In fact one group normally arrive with their helpers some 15 minutes late.

My question here is, how important it timekeeping for a church service? And how important should it be for those attending? The thing is, my current church doesn't seem to lack anything by having a far more relaxed approach to timekeeping, and yet there have been heated debates about how significant it is.
 
Posted by aig (# 429) on :
 
The Clergy, servers, lectors, intercessors and choir need to be there in good time to start on time. The congo need to arrive in time to hear the Gospel and should stay to the end.
Simples...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gosh! I always thought Anglican churches were sticklers for punctuality! Does your church have lots of ethnic minority attenders?? The Black Majority Churches are known to have a relaxed attitude towards time.

Speaking as someone who has to get to church on foot when most other people arrive by car, I always appreciate a few minutes' grace.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
hahaha I once remembered a question at a PCC meeting about services starting on time. The long serving incumbent just replied 'I will not be bound by a clock'.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Over half of our congregation do not live in the parish so drive in. Parking here is very difficult so many are late because they can't find a parking space.

One could say that they should set off earlier but those with children or elderly relatives know how difficult that can be.
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
We have a gentleman with learning disabilties who attends with a carer. This gentleman, R, lives in a shared home. He has autistic tendencies, and it is now part of his routine to come to church. Unfortunately, R doesn't always get up in time and the carers are not allowed to wake him. This means that he sometimes comes in half way through the service, and sometimes only makes it in time for his after service cup of tea. Visiting clergy have to be warned about this, as it could be offputting to see someone come in so late!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The Church of Scotland here starts about 5 minutes late ordinarily. Which is still about 10 minutes ahead of the baptists. This is usually justified with reference to our being on an island which is actually around 25 minutes west of Greenwich.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
A church near here has some men who live in a group home and their carers work on the group home's schedule. Somehow that means they often arrive on time but sometimes their ride home comes early and they have to leave when it comes. There have been objections that their leaving, quietly, early is disruptive but the alternative is they don't come at all.

Some people will be late no matter how long you delay. They are perpetually poor judges of how much time it takes, or their lives have disruptions that make it hard to leave predictably on time, or they want to kinda sneak in late to avoid having to chit chat, or being early and sitting around idle is more painful for them than being late, or they don't truly feel welcome so need to kinda sneak in "unnoticed", or they aren't really surer they want to go so preparations take longer, etc.

If people know the actual starting time is ten minutes later than advertized, that's the time they aim for, so delay doesn't change things except convince those who come on time to start coming a little later for the real "on time."
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
the churches I have been at have had interesting ethnic mixes, and also families with children.

Yes, those who are involved in the service should definitely be on time - and early enough to make sure everything is happening. It is congregational attendance that is the question.

I think more liturgically focussed churches tend to run according to the stopwatch. I have always been in the more relaxed evangelical style of worship, where sticking to start or end times is always more optional.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
One thing puzzles me: why are people late for church at 10.30 am on sunday when they manage to get to work and their children by school by 9 the rest of the week? Lie in? Well, you've got Saturday haven't you?

If it says 10.30 then in markland we start at 10.30 - no if's or but's. I'm at church from 9.30 to get ready, be quiet, make myself a cup of tea.

We do have people wandering in up to 15 mins late and some have to leave early if they're on an afternoon shift at the hospital. So what?

I do struggle with people being habitually late for things (not occasionals or one offs). I suppose there's only 2 main reasons - disorganisation or a desire to be seen to arrive. Neither of these are attractive traits.

Lateness can be disruptive esp as some want you to go back over what you've done when they weren't there.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
I see no reason we ought to treat church differently than we treat anything else in our lives. Gotta be on time to work; gotta be on time to school; gotta be on time to dinner with the in-laws. Why should church be any different?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The church I currently attend normally starts 5 minutes late, or more, and people turn up late even then. In fact one group normally arrive with their helpers some 15 minutes late.

[Killing me]
We regularly have people turning up 30 minutes late or more, and it has been known for people to turn up solely for the after-service coffee. Also regularly, visitors turn up well ahead of the usual congregation.

I personally hate being late for anything and it annoys me when people can't get their act together enough to make it on time. However, I haven't yet found a way of communicating the need to be on time that is synonymous with the Good News we are trying to stand for, and Jesus doesn't strike me as being a very punctual type.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Over half of our congregation do not live in the parish so drive in. Parking here is very difficult so many are late because they can't find a parking space.

One could say that they should set off earlier but those with children or elderly relatives know how difficult that can be.

Are these folks routinely late to work, too?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Their work most likely has a car park and they don't take their elderly relatives with them.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
I feel about this basically the way that I feel about (explicit or implicit) dress codes in church, which more or less lines up with James 2:1-4:
quote:
My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
Who knows why people can't get there on time? Don't make distinctions between the good people and those ones who show up late.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
Services should start at the time they advertise. Otherwise, they're holding up the entire congregation.

People in the congregation can arrive at whatever time they want to; they're holding up no-one but themselves.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I am not fond of a service starting more than a few minutes late. Why? I don't eat much breakfast before I leave for church, and I am often quite ready for my lunch by the time the service ends.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I think if we concentrated more on what is going on in our own hearts then other people turning up late would be a non-issue for most. There is a little pharisee inside of all of us, I suppose. I myself have always disliked tardiness so I too find it difficult at times when others are late.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Services should start at the time they advertise. Otherwise, they're holding up the entire congregation.

People in the congregation can arrive at whatever time they want to; they're holding up no-one but themselves.

Perfectly said. Why even post a time if it doesn't mean anything?

All the consideration for people with children, aged parents, carers, etc. pretends they didn't know they had these folks in their lives when they set the alarm clock the night before.

Starting services late is inconsiderate of all the new people who came on time and all the well mannered people who arrived on time and now have to sit and squirm for twenty minutes because the late comers are deemed more important than they are. It's like waiting for the Queen.
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
If you live in Zimbabwe as I did then services start when the people arrive, The time is calculated by where the sun is,

In the UK I start on time regardless, And the Zimbabweans who arrive late are greeted by a long meaningful silence while they take their seats,

They have to get to work on time, No reason why they cant get to Church on time.

They are impervious to long meaningful silences
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Lateness is not a sin IMHO, unless you're doing it intentionally for the joy of winding up everybody else--and who does that? Neither is disorganization a sin, or a really lousy ability to estimate time (which i have, so I routinely wind up anywhere from an hour too early to 15 minutes late).

This morning I was way too early for church due to aforesaid lousy sense of time (about half an hour); then thirty minutes late for Bible class due to godchild with unexpected separation anxiety; then half an hour too early for communion preparation; on time for a brief meeting with the Powers that Be; late to English class by five minutes; and ten minutes early to visit my niece after church (had to sit outside to avoid discommoding family by early arrival).
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Doubleposting to add, Mr Lamb has exactly the same problem with estimating space that I have with time. He can' t navigate out of a paper bag, though I am ace at this and can always find my way home no matter where you drop me. Yet he gets commiserated with for getting lost in the backyard, and I get told I have a moral failing. WTF?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
A fair proportion of our congregation arrives either at the last minute (i.e. just as we start the introit hymn) or at various stages between then and the Gospel. We don't mind - it's good to see them in church, and we know that most of the latecomers are busy with kidz/elderly relatives/finding a parking space etc. One young mum (complete with 2 year old) walked the best part of three miles through the town to get to Mass this morning, so the fact that she was five minutes late is hardly surprising.....

Ian J.
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
Starting a service late is disrespectful with people who got there in time. And also, there is a serious possibility that some people deliberately got late because they didnīt want to watch the whole service. If people know that there is no parking or the church is not very near their home, they should get up earlier to get there in time. Thatīs how it works with any other activities in life.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
And the Zimbabweans who arrive late are greeted by a long meaningful silence while they take their seats,
...
They are impervious to long meaningful silences

In that case, why continue to try the long meaningful silences?
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
.....And also, there is a serious possibility that some people deliberately got late because they didnīt want to watch the whole service. .....

So.

I dont feel that there is a problem when folk drift in and out of Russian Orthodox services (well who can do 3 hours anyway?).

As stated above there is historical guidence that one should not receive communion unless one has heard the gospel but otherwise what is the real problem? It is better that somone come to worship for a short time than not at all.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Starting a service late is disrespectful with people who got there in time. And also, there is a serious possibility that some people deliberately got late because they didnīt want to watch the whole service. If people know that there is no parking or the church is not very near their home, they should get up earlier to get there in time. Thatīs how it works with any other activities in life.

How is it disrespectful if no disrespect is intended? Try "annoying" or " personally frustrating"-- some word that does not automatically assume bad intentions on the part of people whose minds you have no way of reading.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
" personally frustrating"

That sounds a good way of putting it to me. The problem is in the mind of the frustrated; we cannot know the circumstances or intentions of the late comer or the early leaver.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
As foe the idea that some people deliberately avoid tge first few minutes of service to shorten things--even if that were true, don't you think that is God's business? Surely if he finds this a problem he can deal with it without you taking the role of enforcer, even if only in fantasy. I don't understand why you are putting the worst construction on the situation, contra St Paul. Have you no need for mercy of your own? Eta crosspost! That is not to you, MT!

[ 03. March 2013, 20:01: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Services should start at the time they advertise. Otherwise, they're holding up the entire congregation.

People in the congregation can arrive at whatever time they want to; they're holding up no-one but themselves.

Absolutely - members of the congregation may have all sorts of difficulties getting to Church; anyone who has brought two under fives to a 10 o'clock service has done a days work already and I'm not about to criticise their punctuality.

But those involved in leading the service - clergy/ servers/ choir/ worship band as appropriate - as well as anyone reading or leading intercessions should be there in plenty of time to allow for preparation and vestry prayers before the service. This is not the same as coming into the vestry during prayers and expecting everyone to wait while you drag on your robes.
Explaining this patiently does not, in my experience, have the same impact on timekeeping as just starting the procession on time "ready or not". The next week everybody was, actually, ready!

Anne
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
If its important to you, you will be there when it starts. If it regularly starts five or ten minutes after the advertised time then that's when people will think it starts.
I just don't buy the, 'Oh, but if you have elderly parents or kids or lack of parking or a bit of a walk then its hard.' It's never hard when they go to the cinema,theatre, pub, restaurant,friend's party, sports event, table quiz, interview or their work or whatever else.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
.......... It's never hard when they go to the cinema,theatre, pub, restaurant,friend's party, sports event, table quiz, interview or their work or whatever else.

Oh yes it is!

PS: I DO think services should start on time ( whether or not everyone is there) and if we agree to play a particular role we need to be there for it. But otherwise lets give some slick.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If its important to you, you will be there when it starts.

I think that for at least some of our latecomers, one of the reasons they come to our church is that it is emphatically not like all the other activities you mention, with that sense of duty / urgency / long silent stares from other people.

It's important to them that they don't have to be like that with us.

At the other extreme, you have the kind of church where you bring food to the fellowship meal, and are then refused permission to join others in eating it because you didn't sign up beforehand (true story).
 
Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :
 
quote:
But those involved in leading the service - clergy/ servers/ choir/ worship band as appropriate - as well as anyone reading or leading intercessions should be there in plenty of time to allow for preparation and vestry prayers before the service.
However when you are a multi parish benifice in a rural area and the 9.30 Eucharist doesn't finish until 10.40 and you are supposed to be at a village upto 10 miles away across country lanes in time to start an 11 oclock service, then being late may not be avoided. Fortunately we are blessed with vllage comgregations who are just pleased taht we turn up for a service and always say to us- the service starts when you arrive!
By the same token we have to leave any church where we have had a 9.30 service after only a brief time to speak to people in order to get to the next church. The joys of rural ministry- which I love by the way [Smile]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I've been in a part of the world where time is unanimously considered to be elastic - they are even late for work, and regularly so; but when it came to church they were never late - not ever. If through unforseen circumstances they found themselves being late they would arrange to go to another church at a later time or go to the evening service (there it was a repeat of the morning one). Not once did I ever see anyone arrive late to a service, and it wasn't that they were keeping others waiting, it wasn't that they brilliant time keepers, they simply believed it wasn't a good thing to keep the creator of all that is waiting (a kind of a moral question).

It was an interesting perspective for me, coming from the West, and a particular part of the West that sees lateness as a sign of rudeness and disrespect. Yet even in that part of the west in which I used to live, there seemed to be personality types that were utterly intent on being late for just about everything and who never understood why people got upset when they were late.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Where I agree with you is that there is a cultural element in all this.

It might be worth debating whether one should keep the Creator waiting - and/or where that should come in our priorities as opposed, say, to being in the right frame of mind or looking after our families' needs.

I also agree that, within cultural bounds of acceptability, services should start and above all finish on time, because that is about showing respect to others. (I somewhere figure that this might one day be reciprocated by people turning up on time, but I'm still waiting).

However, I still think Jesus hardly sets a good example in all this. He's constantly being late for things (at least from a human perspective).

[ 03. March 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
.....Yet even in that part of the west in which I used to live, there seemed to be personality types that were utterly intent on being late for just about everything and who never understood why people got upset when they were late.

Bless them and give thanks for them and don't condemn them
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Well yes; maybe the motto of the church universal should be, 'Nobody knows the time or the hour'.....in all things.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well yes; maybe the motto of the church universal should be, 'Nobody knows the time or the hour'.....in all things.

[Overused]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by MT:
quote:

Bless them and give thanks for them and don't condemn them

Where I used to live, I didn't have to - society did it for me. I now live in a part of the West where you add an hour to everything. Want to meet at 8pm? You arrive at 9pm. Cinema listing starts at 9pm? You arrive at 9.30pm. You come late to work and you always leave early. It was a hard first year for me.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
I think it's important to start on time. I've seen a perpetuating circle of the service start time dropping back a few minutes to account for latecomers, which in turn takes the pressure off the habitual latecomers, which results in a slightly later start, and so on.

If the service start time is completely impossible for numbers of your congregation, or those who you would like to be members of your congregation, then by all means look at changing the advertised start time. But if you say you're going to do something at a certain time, do it then; that's what people are expecting.

I don't think that latecomers are offended that the service has started on time.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
I feel about this basically the way that I feel about (explicit or implicit) dress codes in church, which more or less lines up with James 2:1-4:
Who is doing that? No one is making a biblical issue out of this, largely because it isn't one.

If you have somewhere to be, be there on time if at all possible. If its not possible, then that is okay.

To reiterate: church is no different than work, school, a hot date or dinner with the in-laws in that regard, and it ought to be treated the same.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

I just don't buy the, 'Oh, but if you have elderly parents or kids or lack of parking or a bit of a walk then its hard.' It's never hard when they go to the cinema,theatre, pub, restaurant,friend's party, sports event, table quiz, interview or their work or whatever else.

But how do you know this? Unless you live with them? Because as one of those people I can tell you that it DOES affect every area of my life, fun and work included, and it is therefore demonstrably a real global problem and not intentional disrespect or lack of "care". Heck, I've missed planes for this reason, and the only reason I wasn't late to my own wedding was that I came to church three hours ahead of time. But that strategy doesn't work as an every Sunday gameplan. For one thing, the doors won't be open.

[ 03. March 2013, 21:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:

I just don't buy the, 'Oh, but if you have elderly parents or kids or lack of parking or a bit of a walk then its hard.' It's never hard when they go to the cinema,theatre, pub, restaurant,friend's party, sports event, table quiz, interview or their work or whatever else.

But how do you know this? Unless you live with them? Because as one of those people I can tell you that it DOES affect every area of my life, fun and work included, and it is therefore demonstrably a real global problem and not intentional disrespect or lack of "care". Heck, I've missed planes for this reason, and the only reason I wasn't late to my own wedding was that I came to church three hours ahead of time. But that strategy doesn't work as an every Sunday gameplan. For one thing, the doors won't be open.
I sympathise but what's the real issue here? Is it wrong to have to wait 10 minutes if you arrive early? I always carry a book for that very reason.

No one's blaming anyone - but for every person who struggles with being on time, there's someone who finds latecomers disruptive and annoying. If I'm late - am I really happy knowing that I might upset soemone when i ease in? If I'm early who am I going to annoy in the same way? How will I make the weaker person stumble by being on time - I don't insist on everyone being in, there's just bits that they will miss that's all.

If work relies on me being in on time (e.g a bank that has to open at 9 with the staff there) why must slack be cut for those who regularly can't make it?

There was a boy at school who lived 2 miles away and was always late. His parents kicked up a fuss about him being on late report. Some of us had got up 2 hours before him and travel 20 miles and got there on time.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
To reiterate: church is no different than work, school, a hot date or dinner with the in-laws in that regard, and it ought to be treated the same.

Yes it is.

If I don't show up to work on time, I'll get fired.
If I don't show up to school on time, I'll get a detention.
If I don't show up to a date or dinner on time, I'll have people thinking I'm really rude - deservedly so, because I am being really rude: I'm keeping them waiting.

If I don't show up to church on time, then no-one will care. And hardly anyone will even realise - it's not like they're watching the door waiting on tenterhooks for my entrance.

Frankly, I'd be extremely grumpy about church if I had to show up early or be fired, the way I do for work. Church isn't work, and it shouldn't be treated as such.

Long story short? Different things should be treated differently. Who knew?
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
Well, if the only thing you are worried about is the consequence for being late, then yes, you have a point. If that is how you run your life, then fine.

It is not how I run mine.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Well, if the only thing you are worried about is the consequence for being late, then yes, you have a point. If that is how you run your life, then fine.

It is not how I run mine.

If my being late is not going to affect anyone else, why should I be concerned about it?

You might be on time so that you can get virtual merit badges of punctuality, but I'm going to alter my behaviour to suit the people who are affected by it. If they're not going to care, why should I?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I still think Jesus hardly sets a good example in all this. He's constantly being late for things (at least from a human perspective).

[Confused] [Confused]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Late for His Second Coming, maybe?

Ian J.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I sympathise but what's the real issue here? Is it wrong to have to wait 10 minutes if you arrive early? I always carry a book for that very reason.

No one's blaming anyone - but for every person who struggles with being on time, there's someone who finds latecomers disruptive and annoying. If I'm late - am I really happy knowing that I might upset soemone when i ease in? If I'm early who am I going to annoy in the same way? How will I make the weaker person stumble by being on time - I don't insist on everyone being in, there's just bits that they will miss that's all.

If work relies on me being in on time (e.g a bank that has to open at 9 with the staff there) why must slack be cut for those who regularly can't make it?


I'm not asking you or anyone else to cut me slack for it. I have this problem and it creates consequences and I accept them without grumbling. If I get fired for it, I'll not blame anybody but my own stupid ass self. Anymore than I would blame the local paint store for firing me when I turned out to be color blind.

What I AM asking is that you (general you) stop being so righteous about it. If you are not cursed with this disability, why get uppity about those who are? And make no mistake, it is a disability, at least for some of us. Or how else would you describe an impairment that I cannot control, no matter how hard I try, that affects every area of my life, that causes trouble both in areas I care intensely about and areas I don't give a damn about, and that is lifelong?

Believe me, if I could wave a magic wand and make it go away, I'd do so. And it's not so easy as "well, just set your alarm clock earlier." I do that, and I end up in a bad, bad part of town, outside locked doors, reading a book for the better part of an hour while keeping an eye out for the muggers and the rapists. Come on now.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
It would seem sensible to me to keep start times for worship under review and if a large proportion of the congregation for a particular service are turning up late, to look at the start time for that service in particular and see if there are any structural reasons why people find it hard to make it. That way decisions about service times can be made on an informed basis, and with input from those who can/do make the times as well as those who can't/don't.

The work analogy probably applies to those with a particular liturgical ministry, and I think that they are under a positive obligation under all reasonable circumstances to be there in time to perform their function effectively. For members of the congregation the situation is different, more akin to being late for the theatre or cinema. Lateness becomes a bad thing if it is culpable, and is either in the context of a positive obligation to attend, or other people are inconvenienced thereby. Otherwise it is trivial.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
One friend who insists on being very early to any event says lateness is impolite. I was taught being early is impolite - she comes to my house as much as an hour before the time I invited her for, I'm not ready for guests yet, but she wants to chat while I'm desperate to get the last minute preps done!

Conflict of cultures, I guess.

And no I've rarely been on time to a morning job, that's why I take late shift jobs. :-) I'm a zombie in the morning. It's a major effort to catch a morning airplane - two alarms set across the room so I'll hear at least one of them and have to get up to turn off the noise and a third alarm set later in case I mindlessly flop back into bed. Morning church isn't worth that much effort. All my life I've wanted a Sunday evening church!
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Starting a service late is disrespectful with people who got there in time. And also, there is a serious possibility that some people deliberately got late because they didnīt want to watch the whole service. If people know that there is no parking or the church is not very near their home, they should get up earlier to get there in time. Thatīs how it works with any other activities in life.

How is it disrespectful if no disrespect is intended? Try "annoying" or " personally frustrating"-- some word that does not automatically assume bad intentions on the part of people whose minds you have no way of reading.
Well, Iīm talking about starting a service late... not simply arriving late at a service (which Iīve done many times). All the times I had to read or play some hymns in my church I arrived very early, to make everything ready for the service to start at the right time. Everyone who is involved should do this. Cause if the service is only starting at 10:20a.m., thereīs no point announcing it for 10:00a.m. If the people involved cannot get everything prepared in time, then they should change the time the service is supposed to begin.
 
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As foe the idea that some people deliberately avoid tge first few minutes of service to shorten things--even if that were true, don't you think that is God's business? Surely if he finds this a problem he can deal with it without you taking the role of enforcer, even if only in fantasy. I don't understand why you are putting the worst construction on the situation, contra St Paul. Have you no need for mercy of your own? Eta crosspost! That is not to you, MT!

Well, Iīm not condemning people who arrive late at the Church to eternal damnation, in case you didnīt notice
[Snore]

My point is the service should not start later then planned because of people arriving late.

I used to arrive 30 minutes late every week at the service in a Church I went a few years ago because I didnīt like the "worship moment". I certainly didnīt expect the whole church for wait for me to arrive before they start the service.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
People came in at all times to the Sikh Temple I visited a few weeks ago. It seemed quite acceptable. The person who adopted me as a host brought me in after the service started.
The first thing anyone did on entering was to go up to the front and put money in the collection, so it wasn't as though this was done surreptitiously.

Maybe we could learn something from this.

In business we had a saying "The problem with arriving on time to a meeting is that there is nobody there to appreciate it." Managers often arrived specially late to show just how important they were.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I would say that I am pretty punctual, but I have to say sometimes I think the clock is one of the greatest tools of enslavement of modern man/woman. You can have things timed down to the last second (especially if you are in some type of media work), but there are times when things can go a little long.

For me, it was not about people getting to service late as it was for services to go a little long. If that happened, there would be holy hell to deal with. Then, when you try to adapt, there were be complaints the other way. Drop a hymn? Not a good idea. Cut the sermon? People complain where was the Word. Drop a part of the liturgy. (Better not let the bishop hear about that).

One time a person complained about communion taking too long. I could not resist. I asked him if he was going to complain if the feast that has no ending took a little too long. He was very puzzled by the question.

Yes, start at a reasonable time, but I think it is better to leave all watches and cell phones at the door, and let it happen--as long as we don't over extend the time element.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I still think Jesus hardly sets a good example in all this. He's constantly being late for things (at least from a human perspective).

[Confused] [Confused]

--Tom Clune

Off the top of my head, he was (spectacularly) late visiting Lazarus when he was ill, late (from his brothers' perspective) in going up to Jerusalem for the feast, late in leaving Jerusalem when he was a child... I seem to remember Samuel being late for a meeting, too, and Saul deciding to start it on time with disastrous consequences.

OK, this is all a bit tongue in cheek, but still. I've already said how lateness annoys me personally, and anything I run will both start and finish on time, but nobody has yet taken up my challenge on how to enjoin congregations to turn up on time in a way that doesn't come across as contrary to the ethos of the Good News the way Jesus tells it.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
OTOMH I recall Jesus having to escape from the crowds by boat, and even then they chased him round the lake. Something to do with his having authority and not simply being an expert theologian.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
The best thing is to just start the liturgy on time and if people turn up late then they turn up late. It's really no one elses business. But then attending Orthodox liturgies I'm used to people walking about, deacons continuously walking in and out of the sanctuary occassionally asking the priest something, people walking up to an icon to light a candle and say a little prayer, people turning up half way through the Gospel, kids running about etc. Such apparent disorder and business doesn't bother me, or at least I try not to let it bother me.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
The Friends (Quaker) meeting I sometimes attend have a good system. Well they have to considering it consists of silence unless moved to speak.

Start 10:45am sharp regardless of who has or hasn't arrived.

Anyone arriving after the start waits in another room until 11:00am and enter as the children are leaving for their meeting.

It's rare that anyone enters after 11:00am probably because it's near impossible to slip unnoticed into a room full of completely silent people.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I would say that I am pretty punctual, but I have to say sometimes I think the clock is one of the greatest tools of enslavement of modern man/woman. You can have things timed down to the last second (especially if you are in some type of media work), but there are times when things can go a little long.

For me, it was not about people getting to service late as it was for services to go a little long. If that happened, there would be holy hell to deal with. Then, when you try to adapt, there were be complaints the other way. Drop a hymn? Not a good idea. Cut the sermon? People complain where was the Word. Drop a part of the liturgy. (Better not let the bishop hear about that).

One time a person complained about communion taking too long. I could not resist. I asked him if he was going to complain if the feast that has no ending took a little too long. He was very puzzled by the question.

Yes, start at a reasonable time, but I think it is better to leave all watches and cell phones at the door, and let it happen--as long as we don't over extend the time element.

I agree.

While it's good not to worry about time too much, that's only possible if the time you are using is used well and all the fat is trimmed away. When services start getting padded out with unnecessary flab, that's when people will start to take notice of the duration even if they don't have some other commitment afterwards.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I do struggle with people being habitually late for things (not occasionals or one offs). I suppose there's only 2 main reasons - disorganisation or a desire to be seen to arrive. Neither of these are attractive traits.

As a habitually late person, I can tell you there are plenty more reasons, as Belle Ringer had already indicated above your post
quote:
Some people will be late no matter how long you delay. They are perpetually poor judges of how much time it takes, or their lives have disruptions that make it hard to leave predictably on time, or they want to kinda sneak in late to avoid having to chit chat, or being early and sitting around idle is more painful for them than being late, or they don't truly feel welcome so need to kinda sneak in "unnoticed", or they aren't really surer they want to go so preparations take longer, etc.
Now I realise that these aren't attractive traits either, but believe me us latecomers are almost certainly NOT doing it to annoy you, or to draw attention to ourselves.

For me its is more likely to be a desire to be TOO organised, to fit more things in than I ought to attempt, that is the main cause of my lateness. I know that in ideal conditions I can get to church or work or wherever in so many minutes after leaving home. I am an optimist at heart, and want to believe that these ideal conditions will exist for my journey, so I am constantly thrown by roadworks, traffic jams, parking problems etc. Yes I could leave earlier, but I suffer in particular from one of Belle Ringers suggested reasons, that
quote:
being early and sitting around idle is more painful for them than being late
Yes really! I hate the thought of sitting around 'idle' and am so accustomed to being late that I don't really know how to relate to people when I am on time. Occasionally I do arrive to work a couple of minutes early, and have been known to sit in my car outside for a few minutes, listening to the radio or deleting messages on my phone or SOMETHING, just so as to avoid walking in early.

So yes lateness for me involves all regular daily life, church, work, social engagements etc. I'm not proud of it, but its just part of who I am. Very rarely more than 5 minutes late, and at work I'm just as likely to be leaving late at the end of the shift, so I am certainly not shortchanging my employer. Its no reflection on anyone else bar myself, and believe it or not I don't like the attention focused on me when I run in at the last minutes (the worst one is church choir practice actually - lots of steely looks, making me temporarily resolved to do better next time ... until the next time).

Once a week I go for a clarinet lesson across town. Its a tricky journey in rush hour (lesson is 5.15pm) and I never know the best route to take to avoid the latest roadworks etc. So of course I am usually late. But I have to leave what feel like 'early' for me each week to attempt to get there in time (as I'm paying for 30 minutes tuition and rarely achieve 25 mins!). So I allow at least 20-25 minutes to drive 2.5 miles, which seems far too long to me, always assuming that I might well end up early, so I hunt around for a book to read in the car when I arrive .... but hunting for the book delays me further of course, and almost NEVER do I have time to read it! More often I am guess what, 5 minutes late.

[ 04. March 2013, 09:12: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I am very disorganised and have no concept of time whatever.

Because of this I am always early in order not to be late. This is often embarrassing for me, but not for anyone else. I often sit outside in the car because I'm far too early. But now that I have the wonderful hobby of photography, I always have something to keep me busy.

One family (no young kids all grown up) are always 5 minutes late to Church - I don't get it at all. It's just as easy to readjust your morning and be five minutes early!

I'll bet he's not late for meetings - he's a CEO of a large company. They are also very good friends of ours and never late for dinner parties! So why late for Church?

Maybe they see Sunday as a day to relax and take their time?

[ 04. March 2013, 09:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
My church has a great attitude to this - the service starts on time, but the congregants arrive at a variety of times. Some are early, some are on time, some are late. So what?

I've got to say though, there's nothing that made me feel more at home with the place than the opening announcement one week that said "looks like a lot of people are late today - let's sing even louder so they can join in while they're walking down the driveway!" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe they see Sunday as a day to relax and take their time?

And why not? After all, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My church has a great attitude to this - the service starts on time, but the congregants arrive at a variety of times. Some are early, some are on time, some are late. So what?

Yes - I like this attitude very much. But I can't cultivate it. I was brought up to see late as 'rude' and seem to take this idea into all situations.

I am sure my Dad had the same lack of time perception as me. He had at least two clocks in every room and timers everywhere for reminders - just as I do!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Oh hell, I absolutely loathe being late for anything as well. I just don't see that as giving me the right to be judgmental of those who have a different approach, or are less able to control their time due to constraints and commitments I don't have.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
My judgementalism stems from jealousy, I think. I'd love to be able to saunter in 5 minutes late and not have any pang of embarrassment/guilt/concern/etc.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Exclamation Mark:
quote:
No one's blaming anyone - but for every person who struggles with being on time, there's someone who finds latecomers disruptive and annoying...
Not blaming anyone? Really? Certainly sounds like blame to me.

And just in case anyone is planning to jump on me in hobnailed boots for being habitually late, I am usually on time and yesterday I was about half an hour early for church. I think being on time is important if you have a job to do (though as Jante points out, it may be difficult for ministers in rural areas to achieve if they're doing several services on the same day) but not for members of the congregation, if they're coming in quietly and doing their best not to disturb anyone. Do you really think they should be denied access to worship until next week because they arrived a few minutes late?

I don't know that I'd go so far as giving thanks for latecomers, but I certainly wouldn't condemn them. It might be me next week...
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I am frequently early : I depend on adapted transportation. If the service runs past my pickup time, I leave 5 minutes before my pickup time as, if I am "no-showed" I might have to wait a few hours until I am finally picked up.

When new priests started to over-run my pick-up time, I just rescheduled it the the next half-hour. There is an upside to this as I can nip now into the community hall for tea and a bicky.

Indian masses are often 5-10 minutes late starting. They taught the Spanish the concept of
manana! The end of the service depends on the length of sermon, length of announcements and sometimes the large number of communicants. But that doesn't matter, my ride will wait. If I were to employ and taxi-driver he would not only wait, but would be inside participating.

It's the biggest cultural shift I make every winter.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[qb]
1. They are perpetually poor judges of how much time it takes, or their lives have disruptions

2. ... believe me us latecomers are almost certainly NOT doing it to annoy you, or to draw attention to ourselves.

3. For me its is more likely to be a desire to be TOO organised, to fit more things in than I ought to attempt, that is the main cause of my lateness.

4. I hate the thought of sitting around 'idle' and am so accustomed to being late that I don't really know how to relate to people when I am on time. Occasionally I do arrive to work a couple of minutes early, and have been known to sit in my car outside for a few minutes, listening to the radio or deleting messages on my phone or SOMETHING, just so as to avoid walking in early.
/QB]

1. As to both of these - so am I but I manage to be punctual.

2. No, I'm sure you're not but it still does. You're in the middle of a quiet time and people burst in and by trying to be quiet, acaheive the reverse. Just as you can't help being late, I can't help being annoyed.

3. That's not TOO organised, that's trying to cram too much in and then being disorganised. Planning helps.

4. Me too - I abhor a vacuum. I have a book, a bible, my own thoughts, prayers to fill the space. I can see your thoughts re relating to others but do they relate to you because you are late or despite the fact that you are late?

Lateness in a lot of jobs I've done inevitably brings you to a charge of unreliability and you end up being first on the drop kick list.

As a Manager of a Building Society we opened to the public at 9: they are/were our customers and paid our wages. If we were late they would take their custom elsewhere or complain. Neither of which we wanted. Lateness had consequences so did being early - being early, on time, won us a lot of thanks.

Now if people could do that for work why not do it elsewhere? the argument is often that it doesn't matter: it depends from what POV the "mattering" comes from.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Just to be clear when I am King of the Church of England, I will authorise the removal of digits from late comers. It is just rude. Organise your damn lives you thoughtless, feckless numpties. And let’s face it these are the very folk who will write to their MP if they are kept waiting for an NHS appointment or food in a cafe. Anyway putting aside my prejudices .......

I long for the day my cojones grow enough to refuse communion to those so late they missed the Confession and Absolution. It is ALMIGHTY GOD you come to worship, you may want to kid yourself He won’t mind but trust me when I tell you; you will wait and WAIT outside the pearly gates YOU BASTARDS.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

P.S. I have to go now so I can sit in a car park for 15 minutes to be on time for my next meeting.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
I'm another person who is always early. I blame my military father.

Sorry to quote Dr. Phil on this, but his opinion, that always being late is arrogant behaviour, is the only one that has ever made sense to me. I realise that those who are always late would not see it this way.

quote:
Understand that procrastination or being late is a way of manipulating and controlling a situation at the expense of others. When everything is about you because everyone has to wait on you, you are unfairly controlling the situation while assuming that others should and will wait on you. It's an arrogant behavior. From: Always Late? Procrastinate?

 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Ah. Another person who can read the minds of other people and assume that their behaviour is intentionally and maliciously manipulative when in fact it's just a basic area of incompetence. I know because it's a basic competency in which I'm severely lacking.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
Actually, I don't think it is intentional or malicious except perhaps in very rare circumstances. If it were a case of competency, surely it could be improved with practice? That those who are always late see no need to try to be on time says to me that something else is at work.

I've gone in late on occasions when circumstances have conspired to change my plans to be on time. But that's the rub, I value being on time. Other people just don't. I couldn't care less if someone is late for church. I don't find it that disruptive when people come in after the service has started. But in many other instances, I and the groups I belong to, find it very difficult to work around people who are chronically late.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Dr. Phil is talking irrelevant bollocks, because nobody is suggesting that services should delay starting until the latecomers are present.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Dr. Phil is talking irrelevant bollocks, because nobody is suggesting that services should delay starting until the latecomers are present.

Seriously? Where did he say that? I quoted him because I think he has something to say that hasn't been appreciated by those who claim that they just can't help being late.

Of course services should not be held up because people are late. Then again, when the minister lives next door to the church, has only one Sunday service and is 15-20 minutes late every week - and I mean arriving at the church 15 minutes after the published time of the service, not just busy around the church and not getting going - then there is a problem.

To me, and to many, timekeeping is an issue.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Actually, I don't think it is intentional or malicious except perhaps in very rare circumstances. If it were a case of competency, surely it could be improved with practice? That those who are always late see no need to try to be on time says to me that something else is at work.

How do you know we "see no need"? I know I try very hard not to be late, but I'm frequently unsuccessful.

quote:
I've gone in late on occasions when circumstances have conspired to change my plans to be on time. But that's the rub, I value being on time. Other people just don't. I couldn't care less if someone is late for church. I don't find it that disruptive when people come in after the service has started. But in many other instances, I and the groups I belong to, find it very difficult to work around people who are chronically late.
I value being on time. But I'm still phenomenally bad at succeeding at doing it. Of course, you can eventually get fed up of trying to do something that you frequently fail at despite your attempts.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I am not disturbed by people arriving late, but I am disturbed by services starting late. I frequently have things I need to do after the service. I don't like having my time cut into.

Moo
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not disturbed by people arriving late, but I am disturbed by services starting late.

One of the principles that the Disciple program drills into its leaders during training is that the classes should start on time and end on time. One thing that quickly became apparent was that people very often arrived late because they expected that any church meeting won't start until at least ten minutes after the posted starting time. Within a couple of weeks, it was a rare occurrence for people to arrive after the Disciple meeting started. I might add that I think that ending on time is equally important -- it drives me crazy when meetings meander for hours for no apparent reason except that nobody is actually driving the train.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Starting and ending on time is a characteristic of A.A. meetings, of which there are many thousands every day of the year.

As for those who have a hard time with punctuality, a friend of mine once commented:

quote:
It takes as much discipline to be consistently 5 or 10 minutes late as to show up on time.

 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Dr. Phil is talking irrelevant bollocks, because nobody is suggesting that services should delay starting until the latecomers are present.

Seriously? Where did he say that?
To quote your quote:

quote:
When everything is about you because everyone has to wait on you, you are unfairly controlling the situation while assuming that others should and will wait on you. It's an arrogant behavior.
If services start on time, nobody else is being made to wait. If nobody else is being made to wait, the situation is not being unfairly controlled and it is not arrogant behaviour.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The Friends (Quaker) meeting I sometimes attend have a good system. Well they have to considering it consists of silence unless moved to speak.

Start 10:45am sharp regardless of who has or hasn't arrived.

Anyone arriving after the start waits in another room until 11:00am and enter as the children are leaving for their meeting.

It's rare that anyone enters after 11:00am probably because it's near impossible to slip unnoticed into a room full of completely silent people.

Especially seeing that we're sitting in a circle.

In the Meeting I used to attend a handful would arrive at 10:45 (the Meeting started at 10:30), largely always the same people.

In the Russian Orthodox church I attend I always come in late. The services start at 10:30 and if I'm doing well I'll enter at about 11:00. I once got in at about 11:25. The services will end any time between 12:00 and 12:20, sometimes later.

In RC and Anglican churches I always come on time, and can't stand being late. In the Orthodox church however I don't get any frowns, as many turn up late. It's not as if I'm a cheeky get who comes in and then waltzes to receive the Body and Blood.

Once while being in an RC church with my mother-in-law she chose to tell me, just as we were on our knees during the transformation, that one needs to be in church before that point. There was me thinking the Gospel or Confession (by which I mean the communal confession). People "can" leave during the last hymn, in fact, as soon as the priest has gone many scarper. I can't stand that, as it seems legalistic to me.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah. Another person who can read the minds of other people and assume that their behaviour is intentionally and maliciously manipulative when in fact it's just a basic area of incompetence. I know because it's a basic competency in which I'm severely lacking.

Me too - severely lacking. But with practice and timers for reminders it can be done.

Motivation is everything.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah. Another person who can read the minds of other people and assume that their behaviour is intentionally and maliciously manipulative when in fact it's just a basic area of incompetence. I know because it's a basic competency in which I'm severely lacking.

Me too - severely lacking. But with practice and timers for reminders it can be done.

Motivation is everything.

You were once a teacher, right? Did you get to school and lessons on time?
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Blessed are the latecomers for they shall give those who got there on time the opportunity to feel all pleased with themselves.

Erroneous Monk - pianist - only once in 6 years missed the start of the first hymn [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You were once a teacher, right? Did you get to school and lessons on time?

I am still a teacher and yes I do, that is what I have been saying.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah. Another person who can read the minds of other people and assume that their behaviour is intentionally and maliciously manipulative when in fact it's just a basic area of incompetence. I know because it's a basic competency in which I'm severely lacking.

Me too - severely lacking. But with practice and timers for reminders it can be done.

Motivation is everything.

Depends whether you can remember to set the timers and reminders [Biased]

But with me it's usually one of (a) having to go back for something I've forgotten - and I am quite capable of reading a sheet of necessities immediately before leaving and still leaving something behind, or (b) finding that half an hour has passed since I checked the time when I thought it was about 5 minutes.

Motivation is not everything. I could be as highly motivated as I like, but I'd never be able to fly to Mars.

[ 04. March 2013, 15:20: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You were once a teacher, right? Did you get to school and lessons on time?

I am still a teacher and yes I do, that is what I have been saying.
Thanks - then it is possible for those whose natural inclnations are in the opposite direction to be somewhere on time 9Subject to unaccoiuntable delays of course).

Then it's a choice whether to get yourself into that position (be "organised") or not. For ,most people it's not an insurmountable objective ....
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You were once a teacher, right? Did you get to school and lessons on time?

I am still a teacher and yes I do, that is what I have been saying.
Thanks - then it is possible for those whose natural inclnations are in the opposite direction to be somewhere on time 9Subject to unaccoiuntable delays of course).

Then it's a choice whether to get yourself into that position (be "organised") or not. For ,most people it's not an insurmountable objective ....

Not really. Some people can overcome their inclinations, for others the inclinations and natural disorganisation is stronger and can be less successfully overcome.

Thing is, I can do everything people suggest, and normally manage to be where I should be on time, but on a fairly regular basis, despite my intentions and strategies, I will fail. I do not "choose" to do so.

[ 04. March 2013, 15:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Motivation is not everything. I could be as highly motivated as I like, but I'd never be able to fly to Mars.

Haha - I do know this, but 'motivation is everything' trips better off the tongue.

When I set my timers I put a small post it on the timer with the action I need to take written on it. This doesn't leave my palm until the action is done. I am eminently distractable so need this physical as well as audible reminder. If I am not able to remember to set the timer I use the alarm on my phone to do this for me.

It works a treat.

I used to be a coach for adults with ADHD and have many tricks up my sleeve for the chronically distractable/forgetful/attentionally different.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I'll give you a f'rinstance.

This morning I had two things to take to work. My lunch and my laptop. The first because I like to have something to eat, and the second because I'm on call this week and need it fully updated so that it can connect via our remote access portal.

As I left, I had both these things in my mind. My lunch was hanging on the door handle, as it normally is, so that I don't forget it. Then one of the kids said something; no idea what, something mundane. The end result was that within 20 seconds I had left - without my lunch.

Fortunately I can survive without that; had it been the laptop, I'd have had to go back for it. And I only discovered I'd forgotten something when I got to work, so I'd have been late had that happened.

I do things like this regularly. It sometimes makes me late.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
ExclamationMark:
quote:
Then it's a choice whether to get yourself into that position (be "organised") or not. For most people it's not an insurmountable objective ....
Then it's a choice between being a church that is there for everyone (even the Miserable Sinners who tiptoe in apologetically, ten minutes late every Sunday) or being a church that excludes people who really can't get there in time for the beginning of the service, whether because they have problems with timekeeping generally or because they had an unforeseen traffic jam that week.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
If it were a case of competency, surely it could be improved with practice? That those who are always late see no need to try to be on time says to me that something else is at work.

I daresay it could, and I can't speak for others of course, but for me there has got to be a BIG motivation to bring about the necessary change: a threat or a perceived reward I suppose. If I was in danger of losing my job, or knew I was seriously upsetting people, or if I could see any advantage to myself in trying to change my behaviour, I guess I would be more likely to try much harder. As it is, I do try, but rather half heartedly, as every time I fail doesn't really feel like failing, but just 'normal' behaviour for me. And 'succeeding' (ie being on time) brings its own share of awkwardness, because of the lateness pattern I have developed.

I am no way trying to justify my attitude, I know its a failing, a character flaw, but don't we all have them? Knowing that you have a failing doesn't immediately make you motivated to try and do something about it unless the benefits of doing so outweigh the 'reasons' that make sense to you for behaving that way in the first place.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Blessed are the latecomers for they shall give those who got there on time the opportunity to feel all pleased with themselves.

We all need someone we can look down on.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
ExclamationMark:
quote:
Then it's a choice whether to get yourself into that position (be "organised") or not. For most people it's not an insurmountable objective ....
Then it's a choice between being a church that is there for everyone (even the Miserable Sinners who tiptoe in apologetically, ten minutes late every Sunday) or being a church that excludes people who really can't get there in time for the beginning of the service, whether because they have problems with timekeeping generally or because they had an unforeseen traffic jam that week.
The church is there for everyone and I really, really don't mind if people do turn up late(*).

As has been said above, I am happy for people to come in and out (we have shift workers who have to be gone by 12 and people whose inherent timekeeping isn't good and those who have other challenges: children, elderly parents etc) provided everyone understands that when it says 10.30 am or 6 pm then that's when we get going.

(*) The "but's" to this. Firstly it's all ok until someone who needs to be there to kick things off or do something by a certain time (unlock) is there. Doesn't look good if people are standing on the pavement in cold weather. Please don't let others down by accepting a job that involves being on time unless you can deliver: doesn't give the best impression of the church (people and institution).

Secondly, accept that we will start on time (as advertised in bulletin, on website and big board outside) and no-one will mind you coming in late. But please don't expect us to rewind to the beginning cos you missed a bit. Yes, you! You know who you are!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
[QUOTE]I am no way trying to justify my attitude, I know its a failing, a character flaw, but don't we all have them? Knowing that you have a failing doesn't immediately make you motivated to try and do something about it unless the benefits of doing so outweigh the 'reasons' that make sense to you for behaving that way in the first place.

Then, none of us would ever change or improve - this says you're only concerned about the benefits that will accrue to you if you change. I'd much rather consider what value or help I can bring to others - which always involves me not doing stuff that might seem ok to me but which winds others up or makes me unreliable.

To use an example you quoted above. So you're not motivated enough to get to choir practice on time? What does that say about your desire to be part of a group? Perhaps not enough to be sticking with it - unless what it all means to you (activity and people) is far deeper than we've managed to expose at the moment!

[ 04. March 2013, 15:51: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
So what are we all arguing about then? I don't think anyone has suggested that ministers and other people with 'jobs' to do during the service should not be there on time, or that services should start late.

Perhaps we should add another 'but' to your list:

* 'I can't be sure of arriving on time' is a socially acceptable reason for not being on a church rota.

A lot of people bow to pressure to 'do things' for the church and then find they can't manage it. They should be allowed to back out gracefully and not subjected to emotional blackmail. Time-sensitive jobs should be given to those of us with the spiritual gift of punctuality.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Spiritual gift?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
[Two face] I'm sure St Paul would have put it on the list if there had been more than one clock in first century Corinth...

[ 04. March 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
[Two face] I'm sure St Paul would have put it on the list if there had been more than one clock in first century Corinth...

We all have clocks with the same kinds of dials on them - it's just that, for some, time has a different meaning than for others.

I totally agree about the social pressure thing. Mind you, if that's your reason why you shouldn't be involved in (whatever), please don't whinge that you don't know/haven't been told/can't take part in it fully - on any occasion subsequent to your decision not to be involved for the best of reasons.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Isn't one reason why you begin a service with a long hymn is to give the stragglers a chance to arrive? Just kidding.

I know we used to have announcements before the service in order to give everyone just a little more time. And they took advantage of it by being just a little later. Now we have the announcements at the end (not my choice).

If people need to leave before a service is ended, that is their choice.

[ 04. March 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Isn't one reason why you begin a service with a long hymn is to give the stragglers a chance to arrive? Just kidding.

I thought it was to wake up the early sleepers in the congregation or to allow the priest time to adjust his dress.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Well what a lot of discussion! I think my perspective is that people who turn up on time should not be left sitting waiting, and people who turn up a little late should not feel embarrassed. So, in the place I turn up to, I can sit quietly, or I can chat until something starts. It is too easy, IMO, to see the "formal" service as being the only thing that people come for, or the only important part of the morning (or evening).

There again, if I want to come to a service, in the sense of a communal gathering, I don't want to be waiting to chat for an hour. I want to have some idea of the time it will take, as with many other commitments. So starting somewhere like on time, and advertising an expected end time ( or, as my place does, advertises coffee at 11:30 ), it gives a sense of security.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
we used to have announcements before the service in order to give everyone just a little more time. And they took advantage of it by being just a little later. Now we have the announcements at the end (not my choice).

When we do the notices at the start, the latecomers protest because they wanted to give out a notice!
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]When we do the notices at the start, the latecomers protest because they wanted to give out a notice!

Perhaps they're too lazy to txt or e mail the notice to someone who they know will be there .... tough luck.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Isn't one reason why you begin a service with a long hymn is to give the stragglers a chance to arrive?
Yesterday it gave me a chance to nip over to the organist and filch his copy of the Order of Service - mine had mysteriously disappeared from the lectern (or else I'd left it in the Vestry).
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Now if people could do that for work why not do it elsewhere?

Because the way I manage it for work is by getting up too early and, usually, by having to skip breakfast.

Getting to work on time STRESSES ME OUT and means I start the day slightly tired and very hungry.

On days when I am not likely to be fired, I prefer to work at my natural pace, even if it means I'm late.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
If it were a case of competency, surely it could be improved with practice?

"Improved" is not the same as "fixed", though.

For instance, I have a great deal of difficulty in doing paperwork and paying bills. With a great deal of effort over several years, I have managed to improve! Hurrah! So, now, I might pay the bills late, but I know where they are. Which is a huge improvement from back when I used to misplace them in random corners of my house and never see them again.

Similarly, with a great deal of effort, I've managed to mostly get to the stage where I usually remember to turn up for things, rather than forgetting completely. Which is a huge accomplishment for me. I might still be getting there late - but at least I'm actually getting there.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
[QUOTE]Because the way I manage it for work is by getting up too early and, usually, by having to skip breakfast.

Getting to work on time STRESSES ME OUT and means I start the day slightly tired and very hungry.

On days when I am not likely to be fired, I prefer to work at my natural pace, even if it means I'm late.

Ah but that's the thing - is it all about you?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The problem I have with the "if you can do it for work, why can't you do it for God" attitude is that it makes church attendance an obligation, a requirement. I don't accept that even slightly.

If it is not a spiritual obligation then why put it at the same level as work, which is an obligation? Surely accepting that for some people it is better for their spiritual walk to be late is part of the tolerance that Christianity should be showing?

Lets be clear, people can get to church on time. But why put added burdens on people who might already have plenty. And FYI, I am one of those who are early for pretty much everything, have tended to get to church early. But I don't have a problem with people who don't.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ah but that's the thing - is it all about you?

No, it's not.

When it comes to something – anything – to do with a person's behaviour, the important thing is to consider both (or all) parties involved, and how it will affect each of them.

But you know what?

If we are on a bus, and you ask me to stop singing Bohemian Rhapsody because it's annoying you, then the question becomes about your interest in a peaceful bus ride versus my enthusiasm for singing Bohemian Rhapsody. In which case, all things considered, I should stop singing – because, frankly, your peaceful bus riding overrules my singing.

If, however, we are on a bus, and you ask me to stop breathing because it's annoying you, then I will weigh up your interest in a peaceful bus ride with my interest in getting oxygen into my lungs. And I'll decide to ignore your request – because my interests outweigh them.

-------

When I am going to dinner with a friend, I weigh up my stress and extra prep time (about an hour's extra prep time, if I don't want to be late) against my friend having to wait for me, and I'll conclude that my stress is worth the lack of hassle to my friend. So I'll make a big effort and hopefully get there on time.

When I'm going to church on a Sunday morning, getting there on time will involve me getting up too early, skipping breakfast, and rushing. If anyone in the congregation happens to notice me entering during the second hymn, they'll probably have forgotten about it by the end of the service.
So, I'll weigh up one side against the other, and conclude that the lack of sleep, lack of food, and massive increase of stress that it would take to get me there on time is worth more to me than the couple of seconds of annoyance that a parishioner may feel at seeing me arrive late.

And then I'll get to church whenever I damn well want.

-----

Could you please STOP implying that I'm only late because I don't care about other people?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
we used to have announcements before the service in order to give everyone just a little more time. And they took advantage of it by being just a little later. Now we have the announcements at the end (not my choice).

When we do the notices at the start, the latecomers protest because they wanted to give out a notice!
No sympathy there. It's one thing to be late for a service you are just attending, but completely different to be late for an event where you are fulfilling some kind of responsibility that's part of a leadership role.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

Could you please STOP implying that I'm only late because I don't care about other people?

I, for one, don't.

When I talked about my friends upthread who are habitually late I certainly didn't think it was because they don't care about other people - I know that they do, in many self-giving ways.

I was musing as to how they could do it with such a relaxed attitude. I am a very laid back, easy going person - but there are some things I can't be relaxed about and lateness is one. Drummed into me from babyhood! I am pleased this is so, as I am so very poor at time keeping life would be very hard if I hadn't learned to deal with this deficiency (It isn't my only one as I have dyslexia and ADHD - but I have been a Primary school teacher for 35 years so 'overcoming' has been a lifelong process)

[Smile]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
[QUOTE]Could you please STOP implying that I'm only late because I don't care about other people?

I didn't want to make that connection - sorry if it came across like that.

I accept that I have "issues" in the other direction: being late is a neo pathological fear of mine. Why? Don't know.

I suppose that makes me interested in why some people are unable (for whatever reason) to do what a very large majority seem able to do. [Why for example to take your point, does it take you an hour of stress to get ready to go out with a friend? If so, doesn't starting earlier make a difference or not getting ready to the same degree. I am genuinely interested].
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I suppose that makes me interested in why some people are unable (for whatever reason) to do what a very large majority seem able to do. [Why for example to take your point, does it take you an hour of stress to get ready to go out with a friend? If so, doesn't starting earlier make a difference or not getting ready to the same degree. I am genuinely interested].

In my case, it's called ADHD. When it comes to everyday functioning that involves organisational stuff like timing and getting things done on a schedule, I'm pretty much at the absolute bottom of the bell-curve.

-------

As for the hour of stress to get ready...

It's midday, and I'm having dinner with my friend at 6pm. In the meantime, I'm going to wash the dishes, water the garden, and read a novel. Then, at 5pm, I'll get dressed, at 5:15 I'll leave the house, I'll get to the restaurant at 5:45, and I'll be 15 minutes early for dinner. Sound good?

So, I start washing the dishes. Except the lid to one of the dishes is missing, so I look for that - and find that it's stuck at the back of the drawer, and as it turns out the drawer's fairly messy, so I sit down and start organising it. And then I pick up one of the dishes, and remember that I'd been planning to make an apple pie in it for weeks now, and I keep on forgetting! I'm not going to forget again - so I put it out on the bench and grab some apples to put next to it, so that I can remember why it's there. Then I decide I should get the recipe book and find out how many apples I'll need, so I hunt for the recipe book, note down the number of apples, realise I'm almost out of flour, add flour to the shopping list, pull out the sugar to make sure I'm not out of that too, and realise that the sugar tin STILL says "brown sugar" when it should say "white sugar". So I find the permanent marker, and bring it over to fix it - except as I turn around I realise that the dishes are still sitting there, and I haven't done them yet. I swear, loudly, and do the rest of the dishes as fast as possible - but it's taking too long, and I was going to water the garden (it's GOT to be watered today - because I haven't remembered to water it all week, and the plants are going to die) so I leave the last load of dishes for later.

I go out to water the garden. I need to put on shoes to go outside, and as I put them on I notice that my last four pairs of shoes are still sitting at the front door, being horribly messy. So I spend a few minutes putting all my shoes away.
...and then I stand there for a few minutes, trying to remember why I was by the front door. Oh yes! Gardening! So I needed outdoor shoes - which I've just put away, so I pull all my shoes out again to find them.

While walking across the lawn, I remember that I haven't checked the letterbox for a couple of days, so I go and grab the mail, walk inside sorting through it, and have just opened a couple of bills when I remember that I'm supposed to water the lawn. I drop the bills on the floor, go out, and grab the hose - which isn't working properly. There's all this water spraying out the tap end. I spend a few minutes experimenting with this, to see if I can figure out what's going on. I can't - but after I water the first flower bed, I go into the garage and grab my spare hose. Then I set that up, and check if it has the same problem. It does - so it's clearly not the hose that's the issue, but the tap head. I go inside and google to see if any gardening sites say anything about what I should do. No luck - but it seems that the local hardware shop is having a sale on gardening tools, so I spend a few minutes checking out their catalogue.

And damn - it's nearly five, and I was going to wash my dishes (yes), and water the garden (yes), and read my novel (no) - where is my novel, anyway? Somehow this takes on extreme importance for me, because I need to tick off my entire list of tasks for the afternoon - forgetting that the novel was only a task because I'd have so much free time. But ANYWAY, I cannot for the life of me remember where I put the damn thing! It's GONE. I crawl under my bed to see if it's managed to fall down there without me noticing, and then stomp around like a madman, getting more and more freaked out until I actually manage to find the blasted book - at which point I realise that I don't have time to read it anymore, because I've got to get ready for dinner.

I manage to track down most of my outfit - except for my shirt which is still waiting to be washed - but I can't find my shoes, and I manage to empty my entire collection of shoes out onto the floor before I remember putting them away this afternoon in the new place that I thought would work better for shoes. (It takes me another 30 seconds to remember exactly where the new place was.)

...and so, once I'm dressed, I'll get out the door, hopefully managing to find my keys on the first try, and after returning once to find the address and a second time to retrieve the handbag that I left behind, I'll hopefully manage to get to the restaurant by 6:15.

I still have dishes to do, I have a drawer of dishes half organised, I have apples and flour on the bench, my second flower bed is still dying from thirst, I have shoes all over my floor, and my bills have slipped under the couch and will never be heard from again. Tomorrow, I'll come home and do the same thing...

---------

If I want to avoid the above, I will live the ENTIRE DAY waiting for the moment when it's 5 o'clock. I will live my entire afternoon clock-watching, unable to do ANYTHING, at all, because I know from grim experience that the slightest activity can spiral desperately out of control and up-end my day. I will repeat, over and over, every inch of my schedule ("find shoes, wear pink top, get map of restaurant, find keys, find shoes, wear pink top..."), I will wander around my house trying to remember that I'm having dinner this evening, and even though I'm doing this there's still a rather large possibility of me screwing up and getting there late, and THAT'S going to stress me out all day - as is the feeling that I'm a bad friend, that one day everyone's going to get sick of me being so hopeless, and that surely I SHOULD be able to do this if I really, really tried?

-------

I live my life on the edge of chaos. On a good day, I look pretty normal to most of the world. But I am constantly holding on to normal by the skin of my teeth. Keeping my life organised to the point where I know where my bills are (even though I haven't paid them) and I know I'm having dinner tonight (even though my clothes still haven't been washed) is a huge accomplishment, and I am proud of myself every time I manage it.

[ 05. March 2013, 07:51: Message edited by: St Deird ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I don't have ADHD, but what she said. That's normal life for me as well.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I'm quite surprised by some of the attitudes here. Much of it is jugdemental, pharisaical etc. Don't get me wrong, I've fallen to such things before. I've always disliked tardiness and sometimes find it difficult to understand how some people can be such bad time keepers but I think we should try to suppress the temptation to judge people. If we concentrate on our own hearts then people turning up late for whatever reason seems rather irrelevent.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
St Deird - well put [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
If the hour of a particular church service is too early for one to be properly organized, it might be worthwhile finding a church or church service where the hour is more convenient. To be under a constant feeling of stress to meet a time I know I don't want or am unable to meet would not be conducive to me, as a worshipper. I'd rather make a habit of being on time for an evening service, than be repeatedly late for a morning service. Most morning services I know are actually around the time of half ten or eleven or later. If that is still too difficult, then evenings would appear to be the natural and rational option.

Of course, some people mightn't have this choice, and/or still prefer their church's morning service, even though late each time. I wouldn't see the point, as an officiant, in making a fuss of it.

In terms of beginning on time. Practically, this is desirable. Officiants often have more than one group of people to serve in the day. Additionally, people who turn up on time should have the use of their time honoured by not starting late. It would be unfair otherwise.

And while St Deird may indeed be guiltless of thoughtlessness towards others, many people are certainly late because they are pretty much indifferent to the others who experience their regular lateness every week, and to the worship dynamic. I know some of our congo members don't feel helped during their pre-confession silence by the sound of heavy crashing doors and footfalls on the wooden floor-boards! We have had to alter elements of our worship to accommodate the every-week lateness of the same small groups of people.

As to that, it has to be said lateness on such a regular scale is pretty normal in this part of Ireland. I'm quite used to ending the service with a handful more of people I started with. And I could even tell you in five minute segments who will appear at which stage of the service. Eg, who makes it for the absolution, who'll be there by the first reading etc.

Frankly, I'm just glad they're there! And, of course, it is their church more than it is mine. Their families have been worshipping there since Adam was a lad. Amazing what you can get used to, when you have to!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
is it all about you?

One might say the same to anyone who gets offended by others turning up late.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
is it all about you?

One might say the same to anyone who gets offended by others turning up late.
Yes, one could. But equally the offended person could say, I was in the middle of my prayer doing what I had come to do according to the service format, and I was prevented by someone who was acting outside of the accepted group dynamic. (Well, they probably wouldn't use that phrasing! [Big Grin] )

I'm guessing someone who's watching a play or a movie might feel justified in complaining if their experience was interrupted or ruined by latecomers distracting them, or getting in the way? Well, possibly some people take their worship-time quite seriously, too, in much the same way.

Of course, on the other hand, one might say that distracting late-comers are a great foil for the development of one's capacity for Christian forgiveness!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
If someone disturbing your prayer is the greatest challenge to your capacity for Christian forgiveness in a given day, then I would hope that your thanksgiving and praise for your blessed and happy existence should be truly exuberant.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If someone disturbing your prayer is the greatest challenge to your capacity for Christian forgiveness in a given day, then I would hope that your thanksgiving and praise for your blessed and happy existence should be truly exuberant.

Yeah, you'd think so [Big Grin] ! Though I don't think anyone is claiming that disturbed prayer is the greatest challenge in anyone's day. And of course people who are going through desperate times and seeking some moments of peace and prayer - at a time, location, and specific format designed to enable that very thing - are surely permitted some dismay at having that unnecessarily disturbed.

It's only fair to note, that not everyone who is disturbed unhelpfully in their worship by late-comers is being judgemental and horrible.

As an aside, it does seem strange to have such high expectations of how the on-timers should behave, when our expectations of the late-comers don't even include being on time.

My own expectation of worshippers is basically a vague hope that they merely turn up. Sometime.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Well, we are enjoined to forbear and bear with one another's failings and struggles; I can't recall any verse enjoining us to good timekeeping.

I'm sure that the people who find organisation and timekeeping easy have faults and failings in other areas that we chronic late arrivers will be called upon to forbear at some point.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Karl, I'm not disagreeing. I'm pointing out that our decisions have effects on other people. If I decide to ignore beginning and ending times which most others observe, my actions will have consequences on those others. That I'm not a good time-keeper may not be my fault, and it may be desirable I'm late rather than not there at all (my own view!). But it's a little intolerant and unrealistic to think that everyone around me has to be content with that.

And it's true there is nothing in scripture which says 'thou shalt watch the clock'. But it's just plain naive to pretend in ordinary Western culture that our events and activities - including church services - don't have set times for starting. Fair enough if your church's practice is to have approxmimately half an hour or so of musical worship, before drifting organically into a more structured format round about some vague time or thereabouts, where people can float in when it suits. Sounds great actually! But for most it doesn't work that way.

And shouldn't the majority who turn up quietly and reliably week by week be permitted a little consideration, too? I've no time for moaners who's main beef about late-comers is simply an issue of minutes and seconds but even conforming worshippers deserve some respect for their views, surely?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't "choose to ignore start and finish times".

I just, despite my best efforts, don't always achieve accurate observance of them. It's not really a matter of choice or decision. I think this is what I find frustrating - some people really don't seem to believe that this sort of thing can be insanely hard for some of us, as illustrated so well by St Deird.

I don't think many of us choose to be this way. We'd love not to, the trouble it gets us in to.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Well, what can I say, Karl? You seem to be saying that because some people through no fault of their own are unable to observe deadlines, it's therefore ungracious of others to make reference to those who choose to ignore time, and the effect that their decisions have on others.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Well, what can I say, Karl? You seem to be saying that because some people through no fault of their own are unable to observe deadlines, it's therefore ungracious of others to make reference to those who choose to ignore time, and the effect that their decisions have on others.

Do you have good reason to suppose that your latecomers do choose to ignore time? How do you know they're not people like me and St Deird?
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
I confess that I am frequently late for church. Most Sundays this is because I have chronic nausea, & mornings are not a good time. If I don't want to vomit in my lap on the way, I will have to just wait till it passes. Yes, I do make it to work on time, because my classes will not start without me. But pulling that off frequently involves medication, the long-term effects of which are uncertain. So I try to avoid taking it on non-work days.

My situation is probably not very common, or even very interesting, in itself. But my point is that you never know. I enter as unobtrusively as possible, & count on the rest of the congo to mind their own business, which at that moment, is worship. I certainly wouldn't dream of expecting anyone to wait for me! And if I had a role up front, I'd be there on time.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you have good reason to suppose that your latecomers do choose to ignore time? How do you know they're not people like me and St Deird?

You had to ask [Big Grin] .

In line with CofI ministry and our generally small congregations, I know our late arrivals very well.

There are one or possibly two cases which could be said to resemble what you and St Deird have described. And I do appreciate that it's not always apparent or recognizable that that is the case.

Other cases say it's hard to get everyone organized on a Sunday morning, because unlike a school/work day, they feel they should be able to be more relaxed and not worry about time. And the main late-comers are farmers who will be the first to tell you they've just 'got into the habit' of leaving church to the last minute, and feel no harm is done by their regular late appearance at worship. They've been regularly late at worship by 17 minutes for the last 25 years; why change now?

Because I know them and understand their reasons, that is why I don't mind our late-comers and it's never an issue - with me at any rate. I certainly don't bring it up, either privately or in worship.

Of course, these are particular examples in a particular church situation. And every church situation will be different or at least varied. But I think that just as some congregation members have to realize that not everybody who's late is being lazy or disrespectful, so perhaps you might have to admit that not everybody who's late has a well-justified reason for interrupting the service to make a perfectly avoidable late entrance!

I find it easier just to not judge either way. I don't need to know if the person is blame-free or blame-worthy. I'm just simply glad to see them full stop. I personally would like everyone to take that view. But one of the points I'm making here is that it's hardly to be wondered at that some people don't. That may be regrettable in some cases, but it's still an inevitable fact.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Oh, agreed. I just wonder if they'd be less upset by it if they actually realised that some of us really, really, don't find it easy and aren't doing it for the borderline sociopathic reasons some people are putting forward on this thread [Biased]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
A fair proportion of our congregation arrives either at the last minute (i.e. just as we start the introit hymn) or at various stages between then and the Gospel. We don't mind - it's good to see them in church,....

Same here. I finf it quite relaxing actually. It gives the place a friendlier and less stressful feel than you'd get if everyoine was under pressure to be there at the same time.


quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
I see no reason we ought to treat church differently than we treat anything else in our lives. Gotta be on time to work; gotta be on time to school; gotta be on time to dinner with the in-laws. Why should church be any different?

It isn't. If you invite someone to dinner or a party, most people turn up slightly after the stated time. That's expected and normal. Tunring up early is very inconvenent for everybody.

Its work and school that are the odd ones out.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Maybe they see Sunday as a day to relax and take their time?

And why not? After all, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath...
[Overused]

The clincher I think.

Not taht Sunday is the Sabbath of course, its the Lord's Day, notthe same thing at all... but the principle still applies (I hope)

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Now if people could do that for work why not do it elsewhere?

Because the way I manage it for work is by getting up too early and, usually, by having to skip breakfast.

Getting to work on time STRESSES ME OUT and means I start the day slightly tired and very hungry.

On days when I am not likely to be fired, I prefer to work at my natural pace, even if it means I'm late.

Entirely true. Church is not my work, the vicar is not my boss, I do not neeed to treat them as if they are.

Getting up too early in the morning is difficult. It is horrible. It is painful. Sometimes you have to do it, sometimes you don;t. Why inflict it on yourself or others if its not completely neccessary?

And what you and Karl said sounds like a completely normal day to me. Today I think I walked from the bedroom to the living room five or six times in ten minutes to pick up a couple of things I could have done in one trip. And I forgot to turn the washing machine on as I left for about the fifth time in two weeks. And I was more awake than on a normal morning because I had had much more sleep than usual yesterday and I'd been lying in bed listening to the radio for an hour or so so I was almost fully awayke when I got up (Almost, noti quite, I didn;t really wake up till after I'd left the flat and got to the station. but that's an improvement on a normal work morning when I tend to wake up properly sometime after I arrive at work)
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I have ADHD and have learned timeliness. I realize how difficult that can be for some people.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I suspect that for most of us who have trouble getting to church on a Sunday morning the issue is nothing like what St. Deird or K:LB are discussing. On my own I am very timely and it matters a lot to me. However, I have two children, and getting t hem out the door in a timely fashion without meanness is hard. Often I end up plumping for a happy Sunday morning and tardiness.

Also, I don't, thank god, live a life where exact timing matters most of the time. At work, I come to work in an approximate window and the only downside to coming later is that I have to stay later and miss the ideal transit window. No one is annoyed at me at all. In fact, I can't think of anywhere I go regularly but church where an exact arrival time is that essential. Well, my Tae Kwon Do class, but I am always quite early for that these days as I come from work and there is some time in between.

[ 05. March 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
I generally arrive about an hour before Mass; earlier if there's a lot of setup or other work to be done.

Normally I delay the start of services about 5 minutes. Even with that delay, there is always a larger number of people in the pews when I turn around for the Gospel than when I turn around for the Summary of the Law. That's the way it goes, and it serves no purpose to become indignant about it.

I am much less offended by tardiness, by the way, than I am by people who do the "Judas walk," i.e. cut out immediately after they've received Communion.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
I think there are 5 cardinals who a number of Catholics might consider are being rather tardy at the moment...
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I'm surprised by talk of noisy banging of doors by latecomers in the middle of quiet prayers. I was taught from early that when late you enter only during hymns, never during prayers. One can't always be on time (well Grandma was, but only after she no longer had kids at home) but one can always be aware of appropriate times, like chatting during the commercials not during the show on TV.

But sometimes Ship discussions give me the impression church is supposed to be only for people who arrive on time and stay the whole time and wear the right clothes and sing on pitch and don't have babies or children and never cough or sneeze, because anything else is disruptive.
 
Posted by Manipled Mutineer (# 11514) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm surprised by talk of noisy banging of doors by latecomers in the middle of quiet prayers. I was taught from early that when late you enter only during hymns, never during prayers. One can't always be on time (well Grandma was, but only after she no longer had kids at home) but one can always be aware of appropriate times, like chatting during the commercials.

As a fairly frequent latecomer to lunchtime Mass, I notice that many of my fellow latecomers were not taught that lessons or have since forgotten it, unfortunately.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm surprised by talk of noisy banging of doors by latecomers in the middle of quiet prayers. I was taught from early that when late you enter only during hymns, never during prayers.

Our door stewards ask late comers to wait 'till the next hymn, then open the door for them when the first verse is in full swing. It is very much the way things are done at our gaff. So disruption is minimal.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
As someone who was late for work once at age 17 (because my ride didn't show-up) and never again in spite of all the usual problems of a child, blizzards, falls down stairs, etc. and as someone who has never even once been late for church, it's been a mystery to me why some people are chronically late Sunday after Sunday.

It all always seemed like a simple matter of setting the alarm to allow enough time for all you know you have to do plus another half hour or so for the unplanned events of a child's missing shoe or heavy traffic.

I thought that if someone was chronically late for church, it must mean they didn't think that it had as much importance as their job. That while one's job was deserving of a certain amount of clock watching, one's church was not. I had thought that arriving on time was a sign of respect for fellow worshipers as well as the people at the front who had planned and practiced the service as a whole. Most of all, being on time, was a sign of respect for God, as the one you've come to worship, placing him above your boss, lunch date or movie start.

I now see some very different views on the whole thing and I must say that if I believed as strongly that the Sabbath was only about me and my pleasure, I would stay home and eat doughnuts. So hats off to those of you who feel that way and show up at all.

At least I'm glad to learn that the noisy late comers who are throwing off the atmosphere of reverence and the rhythm of the service are not as I always imagined, cringing inwardly with apologetic embarrassment, oh no, they're looking at those of us in the pews and sneering "Pharisees!" to themselves.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
God alone knows where you got to the conclusion in your final paragraph from what anyone's posted on here, Twilight. Certainly my attitude is one of slight embarrassement that I'm late once again and a desperate wish that I could be as organised and together as those people who are never late, but which I seem no more to be able to achieve than to change my hair colour by will power alone.

[ 06. March 2013, 12:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
God alone knows where you got to the conclusion in your final paragraph from what anyone's posted on here, Twilight.

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:I'm quite surprised by some of the attitudes here. Much of it is jugdemental, pharisaical etc.
To name one. There have been several charges of "judgmental," and "pharisee." on this thread. It's in the time honored tradition of those who want to do whatever the heck they want while keeping a sharp eye out for a raised eyebrow so they can quickly deflect blame to that person.

There were also more than one mention of Paul's admonition to treat poor church members the same as rich ones, stretched to include treating late people the same as punctual ones. If it comes down to scripture wars I would think the person who wasn't dressed properly for the wedding was a closer analogy to the late comer. In that case, as this, it wasn't about money it was about respect.


Not that I think being late for church is such a terrible thing, just that being annoyed by it isn't that bad either.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I don't think that the accusation of phariseeism or judgementalism was levelled at those who arrive on time. Just that minority who seek to use their skills of personal organisation and punctuality to feel spiritually and morally superior to the poor buggers who struggle with it.

And what's this "do whatever they want" shit? For the umpteenth time PEOPLE LIKE ME DO NOT GET TO THINGS LATE ON FUCKING PURPOSE!

[ 06. March 2013, 14:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
This ought to be an easy one really. The Gospels make it clear that God gives the same to those who turn up late in their lives as to those who've been there since clocking on time. It also seems pretty clear that the line "But that's not fair - I made the effort to get here on time, so I should get more pay" falls on deaf ears.

If God can not only tolerate someone turning up several decades late, but bless them equally as those who are "on-time" he can also not only tolerate, but bless equally, those who are minutes late for Mass.

That we can't do the same is because we're not as good at love as He is.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
Did any of the puctual people say anything about getting more pay or deserving more of anything at all?

You're citing a parable about the free gifts of grace and charity. We're not talking about those things at all. No one is talking about what God gives to any of us, we're talking about common courtesy one human owes to another.

You've just proved my point of how hard some people are working here to make their rude lateness everyone else's fault. First the punctual ones were judgmental, then they were pharisees, now they're denying God's grace to people who don't work long hours. (Those laborers weren't late, they were hired later in the day.)

As for your lateness being beyond your control -- I'm not buying it. If you can make it to work on time you can make it to church on time at least the majority of times. Keep in mind we're talking about the chronically late, not the family who rushes in late a few times a year.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Twilight - I do my absolute best to be on time. I frequently fail. And you want to condemn me for being "rude".

Thanks so much. I so need that. I so need to know that I've failed everyone by having this difficulty.

No-one's passing blame onto anyone here; I don't blame the people who are there on time for anything. But I'd thank those few who want to look down on me because I'm not as brilliant and clever and punctual as them to not do so. That is all. Just accept that I find this hard.

I manage it most times, but not always. What I'm unwilling to do is second guess and judge those who fail more often. I don't know the reasons, and what would be really rude would be assuming that I do and condemning them for it.

[ 06. March 2013, 16:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight - I do my absolute best to be on time. I frequently fail. And you want to condemn me for being "rude".

Thanks so much. I so need that. I so need to know that I've failed everyone by having this difficulty.

No-one's passing blame onto anyone here; I don't blame the people who are there on time for anything. But I'd thank those few who want to look down on me because I'm not as brilliant and clever and punctual as them to not do so. That is all. Just accept that I find this hard.

I manage it most times, but not always. What I'm unwilling to do is second guess and judge those who fail more often. I don't know the reasons, and what would be really rude would be assuming that I do and condemning them for it.

And more from Karl:
quote:
Just that minority who seek to use their skills of personal organisation and punctuality to feel spiritually and morally superior to the poor buggers who struggle with it.

And what's this "do whatever they want" shit? For the umpteenth time PEOPLE LIKE ME DO NOT GET TO THINGS LATE ON FUCKING PURPOSE!

Karl? You're not passing blame? You've accused some of us of; passing blame, claiming to be more brilliant and clever, feeling spiritually and morally superior, judging others and condemning others.

I have done none of those things. All I did was call you rude. The same way I call someone rude if they eat with their mouth open. I know people who eat with their mouth open who are superior to me in every way but it's still rude of them to eat with their mouth open. Not morally inferior, stupid, unworthy of God's gifts, or condemned to Hell. Just rude.

I think you do get to things late ON PURPOSE, most of the time. Sure, some days you might fall in the mud, accidentally, on the way to the car and have to go back and change your pants. Most of the time, though, I'm betting you hit that snooze alarm on purpose, you had that second cup of tea on purpose, you watched the rest of that interesting bit on the news on purpose and you allowed yourself to do it because, in the back of your mind, was the thought that it didn't really matter, it was only church, and if it disturbs the people who are there praying then who cares, they're just uptight control freaks.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
As you very well know, Twilight, calling people rude is personal. Desist or take it to hell.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm betting you hit that snooze alarm on purpose, you had that second cup of tea on purpose, you watched the rest of that interesting bit on the news on purpose and you allowed yourself to do it because, in the back of your mind, was the thought that it didn't really matter, it was only church, and if it disturbs the people who are there praying then who cares, they're just uptight control freaks.

You clearly don't understand distractable folk. We get distracted by something then there is no 'back of the mind', all is focussed on what we are doing.

I can walk into a room to do something essential and end up grooming the dog/cleaning the windows/taking a complicated photo ... you name it. It's like the thing I had to do disappeared.

This kind of distractability takes huge effort to overcome. It can certainly be done, as I said upthread, but it is not easy and needs constant work and strategies.

[ 06. March 2013, 17:05: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I think you do get to things late ON PURPOSE, most of the time. .

Well, you are wrong then. That is a false opinion. People who are often late for things do not usually do it deliberately.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
There could be a 1001 reasons why someone is late and none of them deliberate. If someone is deliberately late then it is something between them and God and their confessor and/or spiritual advisor. Simply, it's no one elses business.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There could be a 1001 reasons why someone is late and none of them deliberate. If someone is deliberately late then it is something between them and God and their confessor and/or spiritual advisor. Simply, it's no one elses business.

This is nonsense. Just as it is everyone in the sanctuary's business when biddies spend the pre-worship time gossiping loudly while others are trying to prepare themselves for worship, it is others' business when folks come galumping in every Sunday in the middle of the service. If it's rude when you're at the theater, why is it OK when you are communing with the Almighty?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
It's truly amazing that when many churches are grateful that anyone shows up, that regulating their attendance is such a big thing.

May I suggest: trying to be on time yourself, forgiving all those who are late, and always AGF (assume good faith), that there are Good Reasons for lateness, even if their reasons would not be good enough for you.


I write this as someone who wears a solar powered wristwatch that communicates with the radio time signals put out by the atomic clocks all around the world (and thus always knows the correct time and it doesn't matter what your watch says because mine is right).
 
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :
 
The thing that really irritates me is the "fashionably late" bit for the arrival of the bride at a wedding.

Debrett's apparently (according to a BBC article today, can't find the advice on their on-line advice bit) says it is OK for the bride to be fashionably late. This means arrive at the church five minutes before the start time, but spend all the time the photographer needs before the service starts.

Hello! I am a paid hand too, singing in the choir. Not paid as much as the photographer and not nearly as much as I think I am worth, but I was here and ready at the time you announced was the time of the wedding. Five minutes (provided I know you have arrived) is just about OK; ten minutes late and no sign of the bride will do bad things to my blood pressure. Your guests will also hear the organist improvising on "Why are we waiting?", if they bother to listen.

I have never turned around and gone home, but I have been tempted once or twice. [Devil]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
My sister was half an hour late for her wedding because the best man forgot the rings and had to retrieve them. My octogenarian grandfather in the mid-stages of Alzheimer kept looking at his watch every 30 seconds wondering where they were. I guess when you are that age time is precious.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
May I suggest: trying to be on time yourself, forgiving all those who are late, and always AGF (assume good faith), that there are Good Reasons for lateness, even if their reasons would not be good enough for you.

Oh, come on. How can one work up a good self-righteous tantrum if one assumes good faith?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The thing that really irritates me is the "fashionably late" bit for the arrival of the bride at a wedding.

Debrett's apparently (according to a BBC article today, can't find the advice on their on-line advice bit) says it is OK for the bride to be fashionably late. This means arrive at the church five minutes before the start time, but spend all the time the photographer needs before the service starts.

Hello! I am a paid hand too, singing in the choir. Not paid as much as the photographer and not nearly as much as I think I am worth, but I was here and ready at the time you announced was the time of the wedding. Five minutes (provided I know you have arrived) is just about OK; ten minutes late and no sign of the bride will do bad things to my blood pressure. Your guests will also hear the organist improvising on "Why are we waiting?", if they bother to listen.

I have never turned around and gone home, but I have been tempted once or twice. [Devil]

Oh help that reminds me of a near miss ... I agreed to do a wedding at 5 pm (bearing in mind the "legal bit" must be done by 6 pm). Bride aware of this promises to be on time. Actually arrives at church at 5.30 and spends a lot of time being photoed .... result the fastest reordered service in the world and a very very near miss on legality.

Some things do really need punctuality.

Where does this fashionably late stuff come from then? I can understand why you aren't supposed to be too early (say > 10 mins) but how did the late thing come in? Really curious actually.

[ 06. March 2013, 19:57: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This ought to be an easy one really. The Gospels make it clear that God gives the same to those who turn up late in their lives as to those who've been there since clocking on time. It also seems pretty clear that the line "But that's not fair - I made the effort to get here on time, so I should get more pay" falls on deaf ears.

If God can not only tolerate someone turning up several decades late, but bless them equally as those who are "on-time" he can also not only tolerate, but bless equally, those who are minutes late for Mass.

That we can't do the same is because we're not as good at love as He is.

I wouldn't have said the parable means what you claim. As a Kingdom parable it's aimed at telling the Pharisees that the latecomers to the Kingdom (ie the Gentiles) will receive the same reward as the Jews. Nothing to do really with time and motion and rates of pay: Jesus uses this as an everyday example of what they already know to drive home his argument about what he wants them to understand.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gosh! I always thought Anglican churches were sticklers for punctuality! Does your church have lots of ethnic minority attenders?? The Black Majority Churches are known to have a relaxed attitude towards time.

When I played the organ for a synagogue, people would joke that the service began at 7:00 p.m. "Jewish time" (meaning never earlier, sometimes on the dot, often a few minutes later).

Then there's Christ Church, Oxford as I recall, which persists (certainly used to persist) on setting its clocks a few minutes later than everyone else. Perhaps it is on a principle that of course the college has the world's best astronomers? Someone please correct me if my memory is faulty.

There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Then there's Christ Church, Oxford as I recall, which persists (certainly used to persist) on setting its clocks a few minutes later than everyone else. Perhaps it is on a principle that of course the college has the world's best astronomers? Someone please correct me if my memory is faulty.

[/QB]

I recall that the difference in time was supposedly due to the difference in longitude of Oxford compared to the Greenwich meridian, ie the clock struck 'Oxford time'.


This seems to confirm what I remembered.
 
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :
 
Someone said earlier about other features of modern life starting late. Planes usually start a few minutes late. Every film I've ever been to starts late and lately they've been starting later. 7:20 show time? There will be UP TO half hour of advertising. 15 minutes one time, 30 the next 20 the time after. They do that so you get the privilege of paying to watch commercials. Grrr.

I have no idea why most people make a point to get to a doctor's office 15, 20 minutes before the appointed time which as everyone knows is at least a half hour before you're ushered into a cold room where you wait. And wait. And wait.

Yes, there are people who are always late to church and every year people will come late because they forgot about the time change which is beyond me because it screamed without ceasing for a month before the change and so many devices change automatically anyway.

But as a courtesy to those who did arrive a few minutes early for the vanishing custom of moment of quiet time before the altar, services should being on time--if possible.

I knew a church whose sign said Sunday Service 10:53 am so it would be sure to begin exactly at 11:00. It was cute but the next minister changed it.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
I have no idea why most people make a point to get to a doctor's office 15, 20 minutes before the appointed time which as everyone knows is at least a half hour before you're ushered into a cold room where you wait. And wait. And wait.

Not always true. My doctor is usually on time and sometimes runs a few minutes early. I arrived 5 minutes early for an appointment today, checked in, and was seen virtually at once.

Our local bus sometimes runs early which IMO is a mortal sin.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It's truly amazing that when many churches are grateful that anyone shows up, that regulating their attendance is such a big thing.

May I suggest: trying to be on time yourself, forgiving all those who are late, and always AGF (assume good faith), that there are Good Reasons for lateness, even if their reasons would not be good enough for you.



While you're lecturing the rest of us for not being up to your standards of Christian love you might want to give us a little bit of that assumption of good faith.

I doubt if those of us who were brought up to be on time for church are now setting in the pews thinking bad thoughts about the late comers, feeling morally superior to them or failing to give grateful thanks for their fellowship. My favorite family in church, the ones I most look forward to seeing, are late almost every Sunday. I truly love them.

But the OP asks us how we feel about being on time for church. I foolishly took that question at its face value and answered it honestly, the same way I might answer honestly about a hypothetical new custom of wearing swimsuits to church. If I said I found it inappropriate and distracting, it wouldn't mean I would prefer those people stay home or that I felt morally superior to them. It would just be my honest answer to the question as a point of form. When I called Karl's lateness rude, I didn't mean it as an insult but to say that, that was all I thought it was. Just a small breach of good manners like accidentally burping, not a big deal. To me being called rude doesn't have a patch on being called a self-righteous, Pharisee but I guess not to everyone.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm surprised by talk of noisy banging of doors by latecomers in the middle of quiet prayers. I was taught from early that when late you enter only during hymns, never during prayers.

FWIW, our doors bang around because large heavy 150 year old wooden doors and hinges tend to do that, on ancient uneven flagging, no matter how discreet someone tries to be. Additionally in the small churches the entrance is always partway down the nave, coming right into the centre of the building; so at least everyone seated around the crossing will see you 'sneaking' in. Even those with their eyes shut! So making noise in this way is not an act of defiance or rudeness. It's just the only way to get into the building. As for waiting for a hymn - you could wait a long time in one of our churches, as singing tends to be sparingly used in the services!

Better to just put your shoulder to the wood and get it over with!

Twilight, I really doubt that anyone sets out to be deliberately late. Some folks may be late through carelessness of time, and clearly as St Deird and Karl etc have shared, some struggle with time issues from, I suppose, medical reasons (is that accurate to say that?). It may be understandable for the on-timers to be annoyed at the obviously careless, but it's not right to assume everyone is being selfish.

Karl, I had to smile at your envy of those of us who are 'organized and together' enough to be on time. I can't speak for anyone else, but that can come at a price, too! I'd be ashamed for my congos to see the frantic chaos of my Sunday morning preparation. And the soundtrack isn't terribly sacred either! [Big Grin]

And you can come and clang the doors late at our churches any time!
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I never said that anyone deliberately set out to be late. Karl said, in all caps, that he was not late ON PURPOSE and I was pointing out that except in cases of a very random accident happening or someone holding a gun to his head, he was at least in some part making decisions and choices on purpose, that effected how late he might be. I used examples which should have made that clear. There is a difference between purposely making the decision to have another cup of tea and "deliberately setting out to be late."

As pointed out those of us who are on time are not in every case well organized. I have had attention problems myself all my life, every report card I ever took home said, "daydreams in class." My college roommate loved to tell people stories about coming back from class and finding me standing in the same spot, staring at the same thing, two hours later. Yes. I don't get ten things started at once, I just come to a complete stop while my mind wanders. So I have to set alarms all day long to remind me of things like when to put something in the oven or when to start getting ready to meet someone. Buzzers went off for me three times today. If I am on time it's on purpose and a result of purposeful effort.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I doubt if those of us who were brought up to be on time for church are now setting in the pews thinking bad thoughts about the late comers, feeling morally superior to them or failing to give grateful thanks for their fellowship.

You wouldn't know that from this thread.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
It seems to be the same people who are always late and I consider their behaviour bad manners.
One of them in particular is first to complain at being kept waiting in the tea/coffee queue. I've always believed in the rule that if you're not early you are late.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
This has turned out to be a rather touchy topic, revealing a variety of human frailties.

I tend to agree with Twilight's position, so I was suprized to read the following statement addressed to her.

quote:
... I really doubt that anyone sets out to be deliberately late.
The issue really isn't one of the late person's motive so much as one of how other people and events are affected.

If lateness inconveniences no one and disrupts nothing of importance, who cares? Indeed, no one posting on this thread has suggested that "punctuality" is good for its own sake.

I'm one who tends to be on time to things, and one who values time for self-preparation at the start of worship. I am not the least troubled when latecomers take their seats without requiring others to make way for them and when they do this more or less quietly.

Of course, accomodations have to be made for those with physical handicaps. I'd also like to thank several posters for making me aware of just how difficult it can be for many people to be on time.

[ 07. March 2013, 03:20: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
In the years that I have been attending my current church I have never been late, though with the bus service compromised by the quakes it's sometimes been a close run thing.

I would bet real money though that there are other things I do that annoy other people - I don't know what they are because most people are sufficiently charitable not to give me a list of what they see as my shortcomings.

At my childhood church the Vicar was amused by what he called "the St John's rush" where people who wanted to pray quietly or prepare themselves would go into the church, and those who wanted to chat would stay in the porch until a minute before the service when they would all rush in.

Huia
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.

I'd have thought that has more to do with the Sunday School teachers wanting to participate.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:

I tend to agree with Twilight's position, so I was suprized to read the following statement addressed to her.

quote:
... I really doubt that anyone sets out to be deliberately late.
The issue really isn't one of the late person's motive so much as one of how other people and events are affected.


Really? [Confused] Twilight tells a poster that he is almost always late 'on purpose'. Can you think of many things you do 'on purpose' that couldn't be described as being done 'deliberately'? Let's try that out. 'I kicked Bishop Brennan up the arse on purpose, but I didn't [/I]deliberately[/I] kick Bishop Brennan up the arse.'

She tries to qualify this later, by talking about cups of tea etc. But the 'on purpose' reference was to being late. Not extending breakfast. If Karl wasn't being 'deliberately' late, then neither was he being late 'on purpose'. You can't have it both ways.

Obviously, her point - and it's a valid argument in context so why be coy about it - is, if you choose to put off leaving for church by some displacement activity, you're choosing to be late for church. In other words, you're deliberately choosing to be late. Either way, that's her argument. So my response to her that I doubt many people do choose to be deliberately late is completely unsurprising.

As you'll have seen, my own posts show clearly I believe in Twilight's right to be miffed at lateness. And I've equally made the point that the consequences on others of lateness are inevitable and sometimes negative, regardless of what's behind the lateness. (Which is why I think choosing not to get annoyed over it is the better option.)

But getting squirrely over being called on one's own plain statements is a waste of time.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
bib:
quote:
I've always believed in the rule that if you're not early you are late.
Actually I can think of many examples of situations where being early might be considered bad manners too. I find it disconcerting if friends turn up for a dinner party while I am still hiding all the clutter and vacuuming the living room carpet... I'd rather they were a few minutes late, because I never cook anything that will spoil if it's not eaten on the dot.

If you are exactly on time you are certainly not late, though most of us are not organised enough to manage this (even with an atomic wristwatch).
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
One thing puzzles me: why are people late for church at 10.30 am on sunday when they manage to get to work and their children by school by 9 the rest of the week? Lie in? Well, you've got Saturday haven't you?

If it says 10.30 then in markland we start at 10.30 - no if's or but's. I'm at church from 9.30 to get ready, be quiet, make myself a cup of tea.

We do have people wandering in up to 15 mins late and some have to leave early if they're on an afternoon shift at the hospital. So what?

I do struggle with people being habitually late for things (not occasionals or one offs). I suppose there's only 2 main reasons - disorganisation or a desire to be seen to arrive. Neither of these are attractive traits.

Lateness can be disruptive esp as some want you to go back over what you've done when they weren't there.

I suppose that the consensus is that the Lord forgives, but our bosses don't?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

She tries to qualify this later, by talking about cups of tea etc. But the 'on purpose' reference was to being late. Not extending breakfast. If Karl wasn't being 'deliberately' late, then neither was he being late 'on purpose'. You can't have it both ways.


But getting squirrely over being called on one's own plain statements is a waste of time.

I didn't just "try to qualify it later," I qualified it in my first post on the subject, with the same cup of tea analogy, to make sure people understood that I was talking about the choices often being on purpose not the plain fact of lateness. I only used the specific words "on purpose," because those were the same words Karl had used in his all caps shout about how he was never late on purpose. He made it sound like he was a helpless victim of circumstances over which he had zero control.

"Squirrelly" huh? I'll add that to self-righteous, Pharisee and morally superior in my list of things you are allowed to call other people here. Not "rude," though. Never say rude.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Our local bus sometimes runs early which IMO is a mortal sin.

And a disciplinary offence if the bus company catches a driver doing it.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Our local bus sometimes runs early which IMO is a mortal sin.

And a disciplinary offence if the bus company catches a driver doing it.
I've heard that running late is fine, to be expected given the congestion these days, but running early is a serious no-no.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Squirrelly" huh? I'll add that to self-righteous, Pharisee and morally superior in my list of things you are allowed to call other people here. Not "rude," though. Never say rude.

Yeah you do that. But just remember that what I have said about your explanation was that it was 'squirrely'. If you're taking on board for yourself 'self-righteous, pharisaical and morally superior' that's your choice. Nothing to do with me or anything I've posted.

And it is squirrely because when you say someone does something 'on purpose' you are saying they are doing it 'deliberately' no matter how you try to dress it up to mean something different. If you prefer 'defensive' and 'wrong' instead of 'squirrely', I've certainly no objection!
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Sorry, Anselmina, but that is not how I read the overall content and the tone of your comments. (I admit that the single sentence I quoted might have been misleading. However, I thought it wiser to pick out this one thought and not to attribute it to any poster by name.

Log after this thread goes to its heavenly reward, I will remembering two things it most of all.

A) To keep in mind that some people have serious and possibly unsurmountable problems organizing their time. I need to be more sensitive to this.

B) What it feels like to be accused of less-than-Christian behavior for expressing, as Twilight and several others have done, what we think about this topic and how some (not all) lateness situations impact the lives of others.

[ 07. March 2013, 12:48: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Apologies for the typos above. Also for engaging in "discussing the discussion."
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
I've heard that running late is fine, to be expected given the congestion these days, but running early is a serious no-no.
If you travel by public transport you will understand why buses and trains (and aeroplanes, ferries etc) never run early; because those of us who do use public transport spend quite a lot of time waiting for it to turn up, and in some cases this means getting to the bus stop (or wherever) five or ten minutes before the next one is due. If the bus company abandons the pretence of a timetable and has the bus arriving several minutes in advance of the advertised time we might just as well give up and buy a car, because otherwise we'll have to spend most of the rest of our lives waiting for the bus to turn up.

Running late is sometimes unavoidable and the bus company has very little control over most of the causes of delay (heavy traffic, roadworks, weather, mad hedgehogs, the Apocalypse...); but if the bus is running ahead of schedule the driver can just wait a little longer at one of the stops.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Obviously, her point - and it's a valid argument in context so why be coy about it - is, if you choose to put off leaving for church by some displacement activity, you're choosing to be late for church. In other words, you're deliberately choosing to be late. Either way, that's her argument. So my response to her that I doubt many people do choose to be deliberately late is completely unsurprising.


It's a bit like arguing that if someone chooses to over-eat and chooses not to exercise, they are deliberately choosing to be overweight/unhealthy. Many people see that as a valid argument. But most medical professionals, indeed, most overweight/unhealthy people would say that it's a bit more complicated than that.

So I agree with Anslemina that nobody (or very very few people) chooses to be deliberately late just as nobody (or very very few people) chooses to be deliberately overweight/unhealthy.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Our local bus sometimes runs early which IMO is a mortal sin.

And a disciplinary offence if the bus company catches a driver doing it.
For an Ottawa resident who uses public transport a lot, this sounds like a provision from the Dungeons and Dragons rulebook more than real life.

When the pirate régime which formerly occupied S Vartan's shifted the morning service from 8.30 to 8.00, I had a choice between a bus leaving at 7.05 or 7.45-- the 7.05 provided me with a half-hour wait outside the church (try this at -28°C and no open coffee joint within four blocks) and the 7.45 meant that I would always be 5-10 minutes late. It ended up that I found it more convenient to walk the 4km, which took me just under an hour and got me there in time.

Public transit on Sunday mornings is not a priority issue in most cities and, should you be in a rural area, you may as well forget about it. The carless must arrange rides or live within walking distance.

An unkind friend feels that one of the reasons for my orientalphilia is that one can just cruise into the services when one arrives, and it doesn't raise an eyebrow.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
bib:
quote:
I've always believed in the rule that if you're not early you are late.
Actually I can think of many examples of situations where being early might be considered bad manners too. I find it disconcerting if friends turn up for a dinner party while I am still hiding all the clutter and vacuuming the living room carpet... I'd rather they were a few minutes late....
I have a friend like that, always early, when I hosted a weekly event at my house she was always 15 minutes early, I'm still preparing! Then she came half an hour early, then an hour early, wanting to be given a cuppa and chat. Her explanation - she can't be sure of traffic and it's unpardonably rude to be late.

But when I had to leave the house after the meeting to go to an event she didn't want to attend, although I gave lots of advance reminders what time I had to leave, she'd refuse to leave on time, saying she wasn't ready yet - and remain seated, not even trying to "get ready". Obviously being on time was NOT something she valued as a consideration for others or she would have cooperated with my wanting to be on time to my event.

I no longer believe being early or on time says anything about as person's concern for others.

So I started going to church again - a thread in eccles similar to this one had convinced me arriving 5 minutes late and entering quietly during a hymn was painfully disruptive, late comers should stay home; so, startled, I did; I'd had no idea arriving late quiet was so strongly resented as that thread expressed! No one had ever hinted that it was a problem!

But after my friend's demonstration that being early is an internal drive not a virtue, not a consideration for others, just an internal drive for personal benefit, I know to ignore the claims. Sometimes I'm on time, sometimes I'm late and a bit embarrassed, sometimes I'm going to be so late there's no point in going so I wait for the coffee and go to just that.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
As you very well know, Twilight, calling people rude is personal. Desist or take it to hell.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Squirrelly" huh? I'll add that to self-righteous, Pharisee and morally superior in my list of things you are allowed to call other people here. Not "rude," though. Never say rude.

Host Hat On

Twilight

A reminder that if you want to criticise Hostly rulings, for action or inaction or partiality, take it to the Styx. Protests in the thread, whether directly or obliquely worded, can attract Admin attention and action for Commandment 6 violations.

Everyone else

This thread is generating more heat than light. Remember that Hell is the place for airing personal and personality clashes.

You can always query this ruling in the Styx as well. But kindly do your bit to lower the temperature to normal Purgatorial standards here i.e. criticise posts, don't attack people, avoid ongoing slanging matches.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I qualified it in my first post on the subject, with the same cup of tea analogy, to make sure people understood that I was talking about the choices often being on purpose not the plain fact of lateness.

When I'm late to church (which isn't always but sometimes) it's not because I decided to have a second cup of tea. It's because the shirt I had planned to wear has a stain that shows badly in daylight but I hadn't noticed in the daker closet light and I have to change clothes (to what?), I can't find my other shoe, so I am running to church late with no breakfast and no *first* cup of tea, painfully hungry but it's be hungry or stay home to eat something and miss church.

I really resent the claim that people who are frantically trying but non-functioning in mornings are calming sitting around deciding to ignore the clock and have a second cup of tea instead of picking up the car keys. (Where are the keys, anyway? I have a hook for them right next to the door but last night I came home tired and distracted and forgot to hook them.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Me too. Here's a perfectly ordinary afternoon for me as a data point.

All I have to do is cycle to the station, get the train home, then cycle back from the home station in time to take Backslideret #1 to cubs for 6.30pm.

The cycle ride to the station takes about 25 minutes including faffing about at each end, the train is at 17:44; it arrives at the home station at 18:00 giving me lots of time for the 15 minute ride back home.

I therefore need to leave work by 17:20. That'd be cutting it hopelessly fine, so I plan to leave at 17:10. At 17:00 I think - right, 10 minutes to go, keep eye on clock. Someone comes and talks to me, I get on with what I'm doing, next thing I know it's already 17:10, so I shut down my server consoles; one of them takes a bit of time to go down, escape at 17:15. It's 17:20 by the time I escape the people who just need to tell me something quick as I leave.

Get to platform as train is leaving. Now, cunning plan included fact that the next train at 16:54 is a fast one, so if I get that I actually only lose 5 minutes and I still have plenty of time. Train comes. It gets delayed. I get to home station with 10 minutes to get home, which I do, and the boy is only 5 minutes late to cubs.

But there's more. As I leave the house with the Boy, Mrs Backslider hands me a couple of pieces of paper that need handing in. I get him to cubs, get back, and am asked if I handed in the pieces of paper. I hadn't. They're on the passenger seat of the car. In the two minutes it takes to get to the scout hut I've completely forgotten about them.

Then she reminds me that I'm doing my climbing assessment for unaccompanied use of the climbing wall. I booked it for that day, but I'd completely forgotten about it, so out I go again, handing in the pieces of paper at the scout hut as I go.

Do I think I'm a victim of circumstances over which I have no control? No, but I do know that I'm a victim of my own inability to entirely control them. Yes, lots of places you could say "why didn't you?", but the point is that at the time all my decisions seemed sensible and the right thing to do. Yes, there are things I could do, reminders I could set, if I think of it at the time and remember to do them.

I'm well aware it's an area of incompetence, but nowhere in there is there having an extra cup of tea or any shite like that.

The above is normal life for me. On the occasions I arrive late at church it's very unikely I've had an extra cup of tea - it's more likely I haven't had a cup of tea at all because I've spent half an hour looking for one child's right shoe, another child's left glove and had to run back home from half way there to pick up that form about the harvest supper that needs to be in today and about which I completely forgot until I saw the church steeple in the distance and it reminded me.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.

I would hope that in that one hour, the children would have been learning about the Gospel, so what's the problem?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Our local bus sometimes runs early which IMO is a mortal sin.

And a disciplinary offence if the bus company catches a driver doing it.
I remember when, about 10 years ago, the accusations of the buses running early in the area I was living at the time finally stopped. What happened is that the route was replaced with two routes which ran different courses over the last 3 kilometres and alternated. It seemed that the buses were still routinely 10-15 minutes late during the peak and 25-30 minutes late in the interpeak and on contra-peak flows, but with different route numbers we could finally tell the difference between the previous bus being late and the one we wanted being early.

These days, the State Government supervises the contractors using GPS trackers and fines them for every service not delivered properly. All three of the contractors will now action early departures from timed stops by having the driver relieved at the end of that run and the remainder of their shift cancelled.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.

I'd have thought that has more to do with the Sunday School teachers wanting to participate.
And hopefully there had been some kind of biblical input during the Sunday School program that the kids heard, parallel to the one the adults heard.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.

I would hope that in that one hour, the children would have been learning about the Gospel, so what's the problem?
[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Only if there's an appropriate downloadable colouring in sheet on the topic.

/entirely cynical about Sunday Schools.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Someone comes and talks to me... I shut down my server consoles; one of them takes a bit of time to go down...Get to platform as train is leaving... Train comes. It gets delayed... In the two minutes it takes to get to the scout hut I've completely forgotten about [the papers]...

Yes, lots of places you could say "why didn't you?", but the point is that at the time all my decisions seemed sensible and the right thing to do. Yes, there are things I could do, reminders I could set, if I think of it at the time and remember to do them.

I'm well aware it's an area of incompetence, but nowhere in there is there having an extra cup of tea...

The above is normal life for me.

We need a thread on coping mechanisms. Like, when I buy eyeglasses I buy 2 pair, and keep all the old ones, so when I lose my glasses (there are 2 in unknown places in this house right now) I can find another pair to wear - even if a prior prescription. And I keep one in the car as my emergency backup, to be used only to help search for lost glasses in the house.

Life is much easier with multiple glasses! Partly because I read without them so I'am putting them down lots of places, when reading or writing or computering or eating etc. Lots of tables and fell-under-chairs to search.

Of course multiple glasses means buying the cheap ones instead of stylish frames, but eliminating one of the frantic problems (where are my glasses?) is worth not looking quite as sharp.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:



So I started going to church again - a thread in eccles similar to this one had convinced me arriving 5 minutes late and entering quietly during a hymn was painfully disruptive, late comers should stay home; so, startled, I did; I'd had no idea arriving late quiet was so strongly resented as that thread expressed! No one had ever hinted that it was a problem!


I agree with you that being early to people's homes is as bad as being late. (Being early for church, work, or dentist appointments doesn't usually cause much problems though.)But that's just another example of why, to some of us, setting times andtrying to stick to them, makes life easier for all concerned.

I'm sorry that the thread in Eccles made you feel that arriving late was strongly resented. As I've said up thread, even though I'm one who thinks it's best to try to be on time for church, the people who come late are not resented by me at all. I don't know anyone who feels that way. It's one thing to think "Practice X" is a good rule and I try to abide by it, and quite another to dislike or look down on other people who differ about it.

The people in the local Methodist, my husband's church, come and go through out the service. The pastor himself usually starts about five minutes late. They bring food and drink with them and snack through out the service, the children bring toys and play with them rather loudly, passing of the peace is like a small party with everyone moving around the church for about 20 minutes. Most people wear jeans in winter and shorts and flip-flops in summer. The whole thing lasts almost two hours with lots of music and drums and tambourines. It's the fastest growing church in the conference. I think it's probably the wave of the future and those of us who have always looked forward to church as a quiet hour away from chaos will probably be out of luck soon.

So cheer up. This thread has made me feel like avoiding church like the Eccles thread did for you. Now I'll be thinking all the late people are hating on the ones who are sitting in pews and thinking we're rigid control freaks to be sitting there on our fat rearends.

My Lutheran pastor as well as the Methodist one has already, always made us feel that we are of no value to the church because we don't have little children to bring up in the church. We are clearly not the future.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
]We need a thread on coping mechanisms.

Good idea.

I used to have endless, endless losing keys problems. Now I have a little clip on my keys and they are clipped to the loop on my jeans/tousers ALL the time unless I'm in bed or bath. Key troubles OVER!


[Yipee]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So I agree with Anslemina that nobody (or very very few people) chooses to be deliberately late just as nobody (or very very few people) chooses to be deliberately overweight/unhealthy.

I think the comparison between being late for church and being unhealthy is a bit of overkill. All we are talking about is people turning up at different times. Its no big deal. If it is a bad thing at all (*) its only a little bad thing. Something that some people moan about but most people hardly notice. More at the wearing-socks-with sandals category than the dangerous-driving category. The odd thing about this thread is the way two or three posters have gone OTT in condemning latecomers as if it was some terrible moral failing, or a personal insult to them. Its not. Neither is it a disease.

(And I'm afraid I can't see the difference between "on purpose" and "deliberately" either)

(*) and to be honest I don't really think it isa bad thing, Its rather nice really. It makes life less stressfull and more pleasant. The very fact thqt many of our congregation turn up ten or twenty minutes after the start of the service, or leave before the end of it, means that I'm not under pressure to be there at an exact time, which is good.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Interesting outcomes on this thread!

Belle Ringer somteims getting the impression only the punctual are welcome at church, presumably judging the late-comers; Twilight feeling like avoiding chuch because it's the late-comers who are doing the judging! [Big Grin]

More seriously, Twilight, do you honestly believe that as each late-comer is finding their way to their seat they're spending the time and energy directing hate-thought in your and every other church-members' direction, because you're on time? Come on. Who lets a far-fetched notion like that put them off attending their church, if they really want to be there.

Belle, I'm with you on the glasses thing. I still have a pair from when I was at college - and that was at least three prescriptions ago. You never know......
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.

I would hope that in that one hour, the children would have been learning about the Gospel, so what's the problem?
You have confused "learning about the Gospel" and the reading of the Gospel, the latter of which is a specific liturgical act at a specific time in the service, which marks a (perhaps arbitrary) line that churches have drawn concerning who may and may not partake. In short, you have made a category error.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
This is all a bit silly. The other day, I turned up for a weekday mass that was advertised as starting at 7.30pm (half an hour later than usual because of a Lent talk scheduled to follow).

The parish secretary had made a mistake and the mass began, as usual at 7.

I arrived (early, as i thought) during the Peace. As I had my daily missal, i read the gospel 'to myself' during the preparation of the gifts. Should I have refrained from receiving communion?

[ 07. March 2013, 18:47: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:


More seriously, Twilight, do you honestly believe that as each late-comer is finding their way to their seat they're spending the time and energy directing hate-thought in your and every other church-members' direction, because you're on time? Come on. Who lets a far-fetched notion like that put them off attending their church, if they really want to be there.


Not all late comers, just the type I've learned about on this thread. People like Ken. It stands to reason that if he finds a church with lots of people arriving late "less stressful," then he must think a church full of people who came in on time is more stressful. So it would seem that by being there on time I'm causing stress for the Kens of the world.

Is far-fetched the same as squirrelly?
 
Posted by Tina (# 63) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rule in my home parish that if one arrived too late to hear the Holy Gospel, then one is ineligible to go to Communion at that service. But of course the modern custom of ushering the children straight to the Communion rail after an hour of Sunday School has shot that old scruple out of the water.

I would hope that in that one hour, the children would have been learning about the Gospel, so what's the problem?
You have confused "learning about the Gospel" and the reading of the Gospel, the latter of which is a specific liturgical act at a specific time in the service, which marks a (perhaps arbitrary) line that churches have drawn concerning who may and may not partake. In short, you have made a category error.
The point is that the children and their teachers have missed hearing the Gospel because they were doing an age-appropriate version of what hearing the Gospel is intended to do for the adults (although, sadly, there's more than a grain of truth in Karl's comment [Hot and Hormonal] ). This, I'd argue, is different from when one misses the Gospel because one isn't at the church on time.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
The tide of opinion on this thread is running in the direction of embracing a laid back attitude towards lateness for worship.

Questions:

Does this position also embrace those responsible for opening the church, setting up the service, donning the appropriate clothing, preparing the music, stationing themselves at the doors to welcome congregation and visitors, etc.?

Should these people have an equally free hand as to performing their roles on schedule?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The tide of opinion on this thread is running in the direction of embracing a laid back attitude towards lateness for worship.

Questions:

Does this position also embrace those responsible for opening the church, setting up the service, donning the appropriate clothing, preparing the music, stationing themselves at the doors to welcome congregation and visitors, etc.?

Should these people have an equally free hand as to performing their roles on schedule?

No, of course not. The key is that they've volunteered to be held accountable to a position of responsibility while ordinary attendees have not.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Not all late comers, just the type I've learned about on this thread. People like Ken. It stands to reason that if he finds a church with lots of people arriving late "less stressful," then he must think a church full of people who came in on time is more stressful. So it would seem that by being there on time I'm causing stress for the Kens of the world.

I don't know about more stressful, I would just go for describing a church where 100% of people were on time as less full. They've obviously scared off everybody else by saying (implicitly) "fuck off and go to hell, the Kingdom's not for you."

It's a good thing to encourage people to come on time, and also a good thing to silently extend grace and warmly welcome those who are less able to achieve that. The single parent struggling with moody kids acting up on a Sunday morning, the person so poor they have no other option than walking a long distance to get there and the mentally ill person for whom even getting out of bed was an achievement are the ones who need the church to welcome them the most.

If you have it all together and you can get to church on time, your purpose is to welcome those who don't and who can't.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So I agree with Anslemina that nobody (or very very few people) chooses to be deliberately late just as nobody (or very very few people) chooses to be deliberately overweight/unhealthy.

I think the comparison between being late for church and being unhealthy is a bit of overkill. All we are talking about is people turning up at different times. Its no big deal.
I was reflecting on other areas of life where we do things of our own volition, aware of the likely outcome, but without intending, or willing that outcome. ie the whole issue of what it means to do something deliberately/on purpose.

(And I was told on Tuesday that I have impaired fasting glucose ("pre-diabetes") and am beating myself up about it because it is, of course, my own fault. That angst is probably showing [Smile] )
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The people in the local Methodist, my husband's church, come and go through out the service. The pastor himself usually starts about five minutes late. They bring food and drink with them and snack through out the service, the children bring toys and play with them rather loudly, passing of the peace is like a small party with everyone moving around the church for about 20 minutes. Most people wear jeans in winter and shorts and flip-flops in summer. The whole thing lasts almost two hours with lots of music and drums and tambourines. It's the fastest growing church in the conference. I think it's probably the wave of the future and those of us who have always looked forward to church as a quiet hour away from chaos will probably be out of luck soon.

What an interesting experience of Methodism! I'm also guessing that it's not an 'ethnic' church, so the relaxed atmosphere can't be 'blamed' on an influx of people from a different culture, which is what would normally happen (at least, that would probably be the issue in a British Methodist church)!

I think the problem some have is that MOTR to high forms of church practice often assume a high degree of precision as to what actually happens, and when, during the service. That being so, it's inevitable that lateness, interruptions and unexpected events are seen as undesirable aberrations. But there are other forms of church where time is almost always deemed to be elastic; the Holy Spirit is said to lead proceedings, and the Holy Spirit can't be controlled! This isn't exactly the justification in your case, but there's clearly something of that going on. What I sometimes wonder is, if a preacher is late why should people need to sit tutting for 10 minutes? Why can't they can sing, or pray, or share testimonies! What's so awful about that?

Would you say that your church's way of being developed organically, or had someone (i.e. the pastor) deliberately and theologically tried to create a new atmosphere or attitude in the church?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tina:
The point is that the children and their teachers have missed hearing the Gospel because they were doing an age-appropriate version of what hearing the Gospel is intended to do for the adults (although, sadly, there's more than a grain of truth in Karl's comment [Hot and Hormonal] ). This, I'd argue, is different from when one misses the Gospel because one isn't at the church on time.

If Spike had said that, I would have agreed. I assume he's capable of saying what he means.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
I didn't feel the need to say that as what Tina described is what Sunday School is in most churches.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Most low-candle Protestant churches, maybe.
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
I don't know about more stressful, I would just go for describing a church where 100% of people were on time as less full. They've obviously scared off everybody else by saying (implicitly) "fuck off and go to hell, the Kingdom's not for you."
I just want to be clear on this. Are you suggesting (and correct me if you are not) that a church where everyone arrives by the time worship starts is in some way spiritually inferior to a church where people are popping in the side door for the first half of the service?

Because that is what it sounds like you are saying, and if so, it is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard lately. And I'm in TEC.

[ 07. March 2013, 22:40: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

What an interesting experience of Methodism! I'm also guessing that it's not an 'ethnic' church, so the relaxed atmosphere can't be 'blamed' on an influx of people from a different culture, which is what would normally happen (at least, that would probably be the issue in a British Methodist church)!

I think the problem some have is that MOTR to high forms of church practice often assume a high degree of precision as to what actually happens, and when, during the service. That being so, it's inevitable that lateness, interruptions and unexpected events are seen as undesirable aberrations. But there are other forms of church where time is almost always deemed to be elastic; the Holy Spirit is said to lead proceedings, and the Holy Spirit can't be controlled! This isn't exactly the justification in your case, but there's clearly something of that going on. What I sometimes wonder is, if a preacher is late why should people need to sit tutting for 10 minutes? Why can't they can sing, or pray, or share testimonies! What's so awful about that?

Would you say that your church's way of being developed organically, or had someone (i.e. the pastor) deliberately and theologically tried to create a new atmosphere or attitude in the church?

I'm not sure I understand all your questions but I'll try my best:
1) No I don't think this church has changed in ethnicity at all. It is now, as it always has been, in the middle of farm country inhabited mainly by people of German descent.
2) I really am not the person to determine whether or not the Holy Spirit has decided to bring about the changes but I believe it was always present.
3) I haven't witnessed any tut-tutting when the preacher is late. I do see lots of talking. No singing or testifying though. I may be one of the few people who even notices he's late and I hardly think it's awful.
4)I'm pretty sure the change is organic. If the preacher was deliberately late (assuming it was humanly possible for someone to be deliberately late or late on purpose, there's been some question) then he is doing the same thing with finance meetings and choir practice.

This preacher is very popular. The church has grown in membership since he started and the relaxed atmosphere he creates, not just from being late but his style of preaching and singing and the fact that he rarely follows a liturgical program and only had communion once during his first year all work together as appealing features for lots of people. He just wasn't right for me in many ways. The casual atmosphere was just a small part of what I didn't like.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by roybart:
The tide of opinion on this thread is running in the direction of embracing a laid back attitude towards lateness for worship.

Questions:

Does this position also embrace those responsible for opening the church, setting up the service, donning the appropriate clothing, preparing the music, stationing themselves at the doors to welcome congregation and visitors, etc.?

Should these people have an equally free hand as to performing their roles on schedule?
_________________
No, of course not. The key is that they've volunteered to be held accountable to a position of responsibility while ordinary attendees have not.

Mightn't it be possible that some of those volunteers have their own problems with the expectation that they should be on time?

If someone values something highly enough, and is willing to work and pray on it, many things are possible.
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Methinks that those carrying on about being late because they can't find their keys, shoes etc protest too much. We are all running late at times, but if you are constantly late then maybe you need to look at how you organize your life. If there isn't time to have another cup of tea or walk the dog before church, then don't. It is a matter of priorities.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:


quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Not all late comers, just the type I've learned about on this thread. People like Ken. It stands to reason that if he finds a church with lots of people arriving late "less stressful," then he must think a church full of people who came in on time is more stressful. So it would seem that by being there on time I'm causing stress for the Kens of the world.

I don't know about more stressful, I would just go for describing a church where 100% of people were on time as less full. They've obviously scared off everybody else by saying (implicitly) "fuck off and go to hell, the Kingdom's not for you."

It's a good thing to encourage people to come on time, and also a good thing to silently extend grace and warmly welcome those who are less able to achieve that. The single parent struggling with moody kids acting up on a Sunday morning, the person so poor they have no other option than walking a long distance to get there and the mentally ill person for whom even getting out of bed was an achievement are the ones who need the church to welcome them the most.

If you have it all together and you can get to church on time, your purpose is to welcome those who don't and who can't.

I'm glad you said all that. Some people thought I was being far-fetched to suppose anyone would see me sitting in the pew on time and imagine that I was saying to myself "fuck off and go to hell, the Kingdom's not for you." Clearly that's what you think, at least, and if I'm thinking about my week or praying to myself, that's bad too. Because, according to you, I should be getting up and welcoming the late-comers because they have it much harder than I do. You know that, it's proven by the fact that they're late.

I keep thinking of a shipmate who used to post here quite a bit. She was autistic to some degree and she said once that she loved church as long as it went exactly to plan but when anything unexpected or out of the usual order happened it got her shook up and it was very hard for her. there are all sorts of mental illness. Some types may cause lateness and other types may cause this obsessive need for order.

Giant Cheeseburger I don't have you ability to assess needs and determine who should be comforting who based entirely on church arrival times. I don't know that the single parent is having a harder morning with the kids than the married parent. That the poor person who walked to church had a harder time getting there than the wealthy one who lived thirty miles away and ran out of gas. Or that the person with depression who had trouble getting out of bed deserves more sympathy than the one with OCD who is nervous over the late start time.

I would never dream of telling someone else what their purpose was in church. Yesterday, one of my church friends lost her husband. She's always early to church because she likes to sit and pray for awhile. I'm sure she will be early Sunday if she manages to come -- would you dare tell her she had to get up and welcome other people?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That the poor person who walked to church had a harder time getting there than the wealthy one who lived thirty miles away and ran out of gas. Or that the person with depression who had trouble getting out of bed deserves more sympathy than the one with OCD who is nervous over the late start time.

My ex-SIL had OCD and was late for everything. She had to do so many checks before she left the house that her life was taken over by it [Frown]

Maybe we are overthinking folks reaction to timeliness and to lateness? We don't ever really know what other people are thinking of us, and they rarely say.

Going to Church isn't a job, so maybe we need to be more laid back about it? The Church I attend for a few weeks every year in Mexico has a vague start time. One musician will start, the others slowly wandering in to join them. Then the congregation will drift in and join the singing. Eventually, at least an hour later, the pastor will turn up and begin!

All is cultural when it comes to worship, me thinks.

<typo>

[ 08. March 2013, 06:07: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

All is cultural when it comes to worship, me thinks.


I think that often can mean the culture of the individual church as well as the surrounding culture and that of the participants. In some churches being there at the beginning of the service is less of an issue than in others.

I would say that in a church where being on time and starting on time is generally valued it is good to be on time, or at least to make an effort to be so. If you are late you should enter in such a way as to cause as little disruption to others as possible. I would not expect those on time to interrupt their participation in the service to go and welcome the latecomers! That would be a)more disruptive to the people there on time and b)cause more embarrassment for the latecomer who is trying to slip in late.

Attending church is a voluntary activity so for some will not carry the same sense of pressure to be there on time. For those who find punctuality relatively easy to achieve because they are naturally good at it or have developed effective strategies that work for them this lack of pressure to be on time may not make much difference, but for those who struggle with time keeping for whatever reason the removal of pressure means that they relax a little more and are less likely to make it on time than for things where that pressure is there eg work, school etc.

To me it seems some over-magnifying of what we perceive others to be thinking has been going on on this thread. I very much doubt there are many of the people who are on time who are more than mildly irritated when latecomers come in. They are allowed to be irritated. There are lots of habits and behaviours that people do in life that we find irritating. I think that those of us who are prone to lateness for whatever reason tend to react to this because we do feel guilty about it in some way, we recognise that it would be better to always be punctual and are perhaps frustrated by our own inability or failure to do so. If someone didn't care about being late or the effect it had on others I think they would just shrug their shoulders and say 'so what?' if others find it irritating. Instead we find ourselves trying to justify and explain our failure because we feel bad about it but feel powerless to change it. Isn't this something that many of us do one way or another about different issues in our lives?

Perhaps we should just hold up our hands (figuratively not literally!) and say "I'm sorry, I'm crap at time keeping. I will try my best and ask you to accept that I am trying my best. I will try to cause as little disruption as possible when I am late and ask your forgiveness for the irritation or inconvenience I have caused by being so."

Lucia - another crappy timekeeper

[ 08. March 2013, 07:10: Message edited by: Lucia ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:

To me it seems some over-magnifying of what we perceive others to be thinking has been going on on this thread. I very much doubt there are many of the people who are on time who are more than mildly irritated when latecomers come in. They are allowed to be irritated. There are lots of habits and behaviours that people do in life that we find irritating. I think that those of us who are prone to lateness for whatever reason tend to react to this because we do feel guilty about it in some way, we recognise that it would be better to always be punctual and are perhaps frustrated by our own inability or failure to do so. If someone didn't care about being late or the effect it had on others I think they would just shrug their shoulders and say 'so what?' if others find it irritating. Instead we find ourselves trying to justify and explain our failure because we feel bad about it but feel powerless to change it. Isn't this something that many of us do one way or another about different issues in our lives?

This is the best thing I have read in a long time. You are so absolutely right it hurts.
 
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Methinks that those carrying on about being late because they can't find their keys, shoes etc protest too much. We are all running late at times, but if you are constantly late then maybe you need to look at how you organize your life. If there isn't time to have another cup of tea or walk the dog before church, then don't. It is a matter of priorities.

Gosh, you mean I need to ORGANISE my life??? That will help???

What a profound concept that I've never encountered before!!!!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Methinks that those carrying on about being late because they can't find their keys, shoes etc protest too much. We are all running late at times, but if you are constantly late then maybe you need to look at how you organize your life. If there isn't time to have another cup of tea or walk the dog before church, then don't. It is a matter of priorities.

Gosh, you mean I need to ORGANISE my life??? That will help???

What a profound concept that I've never encountered before!!!!

It's like you, me, Ken, Boogie etc. hadn't bothered to try to describe our daily lives, isn't it?

I certainly shan't waste any more time trying to explain.

Hah. Walk the bloody dog, have another cup of tea. As if. It's more like the fucking dog still hasn't been walked, I've had to leave half my only cup of tea and I'm still running bloody late.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
There is an funny comment about personality differences and attitudes to punctuality on one of the DVDs associated with the HTB Marriage Course, presented by Nicky and Sila Lee. They use the Myers Briggs factor J/P (preference for order - J - at one pole, preference for flexibility - P - at the other pole). Here's the extract.

"Sila is a J. When we need to catch a train or a plane, she wants us to leave not with just with sufficient time to catch the one we're booked on, but the one before. I am a P. I like to give the train or the plane a sporting chance".

Church services are not really the same as trains or planes. For the latter, barring delays in departure, you are better being there half an hour early than one minute late. We all know that really. But if we are J-ish, that train/plane punctuality thing can spill over a bit. We tend to see all start times as deadlines. I'm a bit like that. I hate to be late.

In my local congo, where there is no tradition of sitting in quiet reflection before a service starts, people chat a lot until there is a request from the front to "please take your seats". A NF congo I visit from time to time uses a countdown clock. People arrive and find church notices displayed on a screen on a loop, with a countdown clock which will reach zero at start time. I quite like that. It's information, plus an implied request to take your seats. Seems to work very well.

Both in my congo and the NF one there is no overt discipline from the front. There's a recognition that most folks turn up in good, or reasonable, or the nick of time, and if they don't there's probably a reason. But then in neither place is there a fixed liturgy - or a tradition of filling the seats from the back. Latecomers don't have to walk to the front to get a seat. Normally they can join unobtrusively, without the embarrassment to them of interrupting proceedings.

That stands in sharp contrast to a bit of Spike Milligan lunacy I saw when he was performing in "Oblomov" in the West End. There was a stunt. Some folks arrived late and had seats two rows from the front. As they went to take their seats some folks had to stand up to let them pass, and there was a bit of rustling. Milligan called "lights", the theatre lights came on and he had a real go at the latecomers.

"How dare you be so rude, interrupting the show, spoiling the enjoyment of others, causing a disturbance, you should be ashamed of yourselves, now we'll have to restart the whole *** play!!" Bill Owen, acting the part, put his arm around Spike, calmed him down and after a struggle he agreed to pick up where they had left off. It took a little while to cotton onto the fact that it was part of the show. Anyway, about 5 minutes later, some real latecomers arrived and the whole place (including the actors) fell about laughing!

Sure, I think there are some issues of personal responsibility and respect for others in getting to the church on time. And I think these may be more important when there are clear liturgical structures, including e.g. an early corporate confession.

But the words of Rabbi Lionel Blue come to mind at this point. "Don't take it too heavy".

[ 08. March 2013, 09:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church isn't a job, so maybe we need to be more laid back about it?

Hell. Yes.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Posted by Lucia:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Boogie:

All is cultural when it comes to worship, me thinks.
___________________________
I think that often can mean the culture of the individual church as well as the surrounding culture and that of the participants. In some churches being there at the beginning of the service is less of an issue than in others.

Agree ... and agree. All is cultural. And, often, all is sub-cultural: i.e., specific religious communities and settings.

In this case, as this thread makes clear, there are huge differences between communities which express themselves in a relatively informal worship styles and those which do so with more formal liturgies.

At one end of the spectrum might be the Mexican church described by Boogie, or Twilight's husband's church in the U.S. At the other end of the spectrum would be what I am used too: a formal mass, whose structure has a clear beginning and end, and which usually (not always) begins with a period of private meditation.

Individuals probably are happiest, most comfortable, in worship settings which fit their own personal style/preferences/abilities as to time-keeping.

[ 08. March 2013, 11:50: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church isn't a job, so maybe we need to be more laid back about it?

Hell. Yes.
Defos.

I'm still trying to understand what is so upsetting and distracting about people arriving late anyhow. Stuff is distracting in church. The person sniffling with a cold. The person breast feeding (heard a few complaints about that one). The distracted kid. The person with Tourette's. The disabled person. The person who sings out of tune. Need I go on?

The only way you can make church not distracting is to make it not inclusive. And that's waaaaaay to high a price to pay.

If I get distracted by someone else, first and foremost it's my attitude that needs to change. That's what 'bearing with each other' is all about.

Of course, if people are expecting the church to wait until they've arrived to start (though I've never come across that, EM, so your experience is unique I suspect), or it's people involved in the service, that's different. But that's not about lateness, that's about responsibility.

I think there's been a bit too much seeing through a window into each others' souls in this thread. Various reasons have been given for being late here, mostly negative, as if arriving late is a failure. There have been times when I have purposely arrived late for church. My wife and I separated last year, and one thing that I sometimes don't want to face at church is the awkward small talk that happens. I want to go in, sit at the back and be part of the service, then leave at the end. It's either arrive late so I don't have to face too many watery smiles, or not go at all. There may be a whole host of other reasons why people are arriving late, and I doubt we've scratched the surface of what those might be here. Rather than assuming that it's because they're either failures or rude, why not assume the best of each other?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church isn't a job, so maybe we need to be more laid back about it?

Hell. Yes.
Yes, lets get our priorities right. Mammon is more important than God. He just needs to fit in with the other (more important) things, damn he's lucky I bother with Him. He should be grateful I turn up at all.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church isn't a job, so maybe we need to be more laid back about it?

Hell. Yes.
Yes, lets get our priorities right. Mammon is more important than God. He just needs to fit in with the other (more important) things, damn he's lucky I bother with Him. He should be grateful I turn up at all.
Shall I break out the verse about the sabbath being made for man again, or shall I take that point as read?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Talk of the sabbath is a red herring, worship is not work.

We are talking about a the weekly focus of our relationship with God. To which I add this "Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence. This is the most important, the first on any list."

He did not add to that, "when you can be arsed to turn up."
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:


He did not add to that, "when you can be arsed to turn up."

He didn't say we should 'turn up' at all. Surely the type of worship he speaks of is the 24/7 kind?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:


He did not add to that, "when you can be arsed to turn up."

He didn't say we should 'turn up' at all. Surely the type of worship he speaks of is the 24/7 kind?
Of course it is a 24/7 thing including Sunday mornings. His penultimate act, His last meal was a "turning up."
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Talk of the sabbath is a red herring, worship is not work.

So why burden it with the artificial encumbrances of post-industrial-revolution workplaces?

All hail the Fordist Church!
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
artificial encumbrances of post-industrial-revolution workplaces?
Firstly your basic premise is wrong, people have always been called to worship at a particular time. Again the last meal, the timing is specific. Or; Church Bells called the faithful long before the Iron Bridge in Telford.

Secondly Jesus worshipped in community. We are communal and Christianity is defined by relationship. With each other and with God. Communities need some sort of guidelines to function. I am not in favour of the "law" and I know of my need of Grace.

But this much avoidance and tangential thinking of a basic premis ( It is helpful to community to be on time) smacks of a deeper attitude to worship.

Everybody is late for church sometimes, it is unavoidable. When it becomes habitual then we all have a problem.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Talk of the sabbath is a red herring, worship is not work.

It certainly is for the priest, the other clergy, the choir, the organist, the band, the altar servers, the altar guild (delete as required).
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Talk of the sabbath is a red herring, worship is not work.

It certainly is for the priest, the other clergy, the choir, the organist, the band, the altar servers, the altar guild (delete as required).
I can not speak for others but the day it becomes work is (ironically) the day I quit.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Do you get paid for it?
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you get paid for it?

No, I recieve a stipend.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
...being late because they can't find their keys, shoes etc protest too much. ...you need to look at how you organize your life. If there isn't time to have another cup of tea...

Gosh, you mean I need to ORGANISE my life??? That will help???
What a profound concept that I've never encountered before!!!!

Reading this I had an "aha" moment. One of the sicknesses of modern Western culture is the pervasive pursuit of more, including cramming so much into a day's schedule that having events start at a precise time is critically important so it can end "on time" so we can cram in the next event. Cramming requires a lot of effort at organizing life, people carry calendars and day planners just to stay organized.

But life is not suppose to be organized. It's suppose to be lived. That mean stopping to chat with a neighbor when you are both in front of your houses getting into your cars to go to your churches. It means pausing to admire a sunrise or sunset. It does NOT mean making every moment "productive"!

The fetish with precise timing is a modern Western cultural quirk that leads to diseases of stress. We would be a healthier culture if we threw away the watches with their minute and second hands and went back to approximate time.

Anyway, several of us have pointed out it's not about a second cuppa, we haven't had even a first cup and yet here it is again - "you are just being self indulgent." If that's what people persist in assuming, I think I should stop trying so hard to meet their requirements for acceptable lifestyle and go ahead and indulge in a *first* cuppa, and be even later but relaxed and healthier. :-)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
...being late because they can't find their keys, shoes etc protest too much. ...you need to look at how you organize your life. If there isn't time to have another cup of tea...

Gosh, you mean I need to ORGANISE my life??? That will help???
What a profound concept that I've never encountered before!!!!

Reading this I had an "aha" moment. One of the sicknesses of modern Western culture is the pervasive pursuit of more, including cramming so much into a day's schedule that having events start at a precise time is critically important so it can end "on time" so we can cram in the next event. Cramming requires a lot of effort at organizing life, people carry calendars and day planners just to stay organized.

But life is not suppose to be organized. It's suppose to be lived. That mean stopping to chat with a neighbor when you are both in front of your houses getting into your cars to go to your churches. It means pausing to admire a sunrise or sunset. It does NOT mean making every moment "productive"!
:-)

You are right. And I say that as probably the most organized person you've ever met. Always working 2 or 3 weeks ahead of schedule, always with a list and my icalendar, always on task.

And yet, when I see how my friends in other places (especially Central Africa) live-- in the moment, taking time for conversations, to listen, to walk, to just be with people... I realize all that I am missing. Right now my goal is just to be a bit more interruptible, at least for my family.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

But life is not suppose to be organized. It's suppose to be lived. That mean stopping to chat with a neighbor when you are both in front of your houses getting into your cars to go to your churches. It means pausing to admire a sunrise or sunset. It does NOT mean making every moment "productive"!

But but but but ...

I am much happier, more relaxed, inspired and far better company when I am being productive. I am semi retired now and only work two and a half days a week (=four if I include planning, preparation etc). This is a joy. But I fill the other days with enjoyable productivity.

Sitting around looking the sunset is not an option for the hyperactive!

For example, this morning I woke up at 6am. I don't need to be anywhere (a photography course woohoo!) until 10am. Could I lie in bed? No! I had to jump up and get on with the day.

That doesn't mean I haven't time for a chat, and I am very interruptible (often too much so) - but it does show that not everyone benefits from a slow pace of life.

<typo>

[ 09. March 2013, 06:55: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm getting better at organization in self-defense as Mr. L is hopeless at it (maybe in the resurrection) and LL is eleven and showing the worst of both parents' traits. Still, I'm keenly aware that if I DO ever get sufficiently organized to meet everybody's expectations (boss, church, school, neighbors) I will have lost what is most important to me. I just can't manage to have both, given my time estimation problems.

Case in point: I was thirty minutes late to my Bible class last week because of a clingy six year old godchild freaking out about going to a new class. I put the relationship first there, and trusted my classmates to put up with me (God bless them).

Again, I missed Lent service because of an emotional preteen (and I'm pretty sure this is being counted against me by the PTB, but whatever).

I was late fulfilling my own professional development expectations (reviewing Hebrew syntax, yay) and had to stay up most of the night reading crap because I'd spent the time I should have done this, on a) teaching my husband what he needed to know for his licensing exam, and b) coping with my son's educational issues. But nobody else could do it--I'm the native English speaker in this house, so I couldn't shove the responsibility off on anyone else. My boss will probably eat me for not having ticked off all the boxes until a day late, as my family problems are none of his concern (and rightly so). But Hebrew syntax is virtually irrelevant to my work, and having a functioning family is not.

I'm going to be late to church tomorrow because my godson's father won't let him drive, nobody from church is willing to pick him up (believe me, we've asked), and there's no public transport that runs Sunday morning where he needs it. And picking him up at a reasonable time means missing part of first service. But telling him to stay home is likely to lead to him dropping out of the church community, and we're trying to head that off. So I'll sit in the narthex where I don't disturb anybody with my lateness--as usual.

I figure that at my funeral they'll shake their heads and say "that girl was late for EVERYTHING." But if I did otherwise (spending all my time compensating for my time perception problems), nobody would show up at the funeral at all.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Both Belle Ringer and Boogie have good points to make. I suppose many of us don't often get the balance right between unproductive busyness and unintentional messiness. But maybe it's just easier for those who err on the side of being organized to hide behind the appearance of being in control?
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

But life is not suppose to be organized. It's suppose to be lived. That mean stopping to chat with a neighbor when you are both in front of your houses getting into your cars to go to your churches. It means pausing to admire a sunrise or sunset. It does NOT mean making every moment "productive"!

But but but but ...

I am much happier, more relaxed, inspired and far better company when I am being productive.

Great! The point is, do what is healthy and life-enhancing for you, not what works for someone else but is damaging for you.

I've had life phases when I thrived on being constantly active and phases when I needed to be primarily inactive and phases in between. None of these are virtues or vices.

If being constantly productive and making use of every minute feeds you health, but someone else trying to live that way is stressed, then neither way is a universal value to be imposed on all others as the One Right Way.

Some voices on this thread seem to insist on One Right Way for all - their way.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But maybe it's just easier for those who err on the side of being organized to hide behind the appearance of being in control?

We're doing what now? We're putting on some sort of pretentious show? My plodding effort to get to church on time is starting to sound downright evil.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Anselmina:
But maybe it's just easier for those who err on the side of being organized to hide behind the appearance of being in control?

I'm puzzled. Earlier, you accused those who disagreeing with you of attributing motives (negative motives) to those who defend being late.

Now you are engaging in just the kind of "arguments" that you condemned when, as you saw it, they were aimed at you.

"Err on the side of of being organized" -- when used to characterize punctuality in others -- seems unfair. Just as "err on the side of laxness/sloppiness/or whatever" would be.

"Hide behind the appearance of being in control" is even worse.

These are judgments and speculations about motive (and in the second example, about character) that you are in no position to make. I would not enjoy having such statements directed towards me. Nor, I suspect, would you.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
But maybe it's just easier for those who err on the side of being organized to hide behind the appearance of being in control?

We're doing what now? We're putting on some sort of pretentious show? My plodding effort to get to church on time is starting to sound downright evil.
[Paranoid] My post has nothing - so far as I know - to do with you. It certainly wasn't directed at you, or inspired by you, or even typed with any vestige of thought concerning you.

My reply is to Boogie's and Belle Ringer's posts. And it's about those people who keep good time but are perhaps not as under control as others may think. They appear under control because they hit the mark, but the chaos and mess that underlies the effort of getting to church on time is therefore hidden. That is exactly and specifically what I'm writing about - no more, no less. I'm not interested in interpretations of what I've written involving words like 'pretentious' and 'evil' because nothing I've posted there connects in any way with such an interpretation. At least not rationally, I think. And it would hardly have been my intention to hint at such a thing. For the following reason - if for no other.

It's my own case. I've already described my pre-church prep on this thread as 'chaotic' - if anything an understatment. I have three services to fit into about three a half hours (including travelling time), and on average less than half an hour before I should be giving the greeting, I'm still folding pew sheets or dragging the dogs in from the garden. Not that that particularly matters. The point stands. And whoever else 'chaotic, but on time' may apply to, on this thread or off it, I don't know. But it is those people - myself included - I'm referring to.

My timeliness is hard won and I believe it's necessary for me to strive for. But it doesn't make me either morally superior or inferior to those who strive in their own way, and are late. And as phobic as I am about my own time-keeping, my choice not to be irritated by late church-attenders is a great release on a Sunday morning which already has enough of its own stresses to contend with.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Anselmina:
But maybe it's just easier for those who err on the side of being organized to hide behind the appearance of being in control?

I'm puzzled. Earlier, you accused those who disagreeing with you of attributing motives (negative motives) to those who defend being late.

Now you are engaging in just the kind of "arguments" that you condemned when, as you saw it, they were aimed at you.

"Err on the side of of being organized" -- when used to characterize punctuality in others -- seems unfair. Just as "err on the side of laxness/sloppiness/or whatever" would be.

"Hide behind the appearance of being in control" is even worse.

These are judgments and speculations about motive (and in the second example, about character) that you are in no position to make. I would not enjoy having such statements directed towards me. Nor, I suspect, would you.

I think I chose the wrong word when I said 'err'. Being poetic I suppose - as in 'erring on the side of caution'. I suppose I meant that just as some folks - try as they might - can't help but be late, so some folks by the quirk of their nature, are almost incapable of being late. And yet both somehow 'err' - neither being perfect. I admit, it wasn't a point well made.

As you'll see from my previous post, this is my own case. I certainly consider myself as 'hiding' my own chaos by being on time. So in fact I do quite directly apply these phrases to myself, and wouldn't be either surprized or dismayed if someone else did as well. I should be more surprized if someone hasn't done so already!

And I think it's probably true that people like me get away with appearing to be more in control than we really are just because we beat Mickey Mouse's hands to the numbers on the watch-face! It certainly feels that way a lot of the time. I should've flagged it up as being a more personal reflection.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you get paid for it?

No, I recieve a stipend.
Tomayto tomahto.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you get paid for it?

No, I recieve a stipend.
Tomayto tomahto.
Maybe. But the difference is that stipendiaries are being given payment, not so much, to be on time at certain hours or on certain days, but to be available for as much of the whole of the time as possible.

However, in the narrow terms of needing to be on time for scheduled things, that amounts to the same thing, in that case.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I figure that at my funeral they'll shake their heads and say "that girl was late for EVERYTHING." But if I did otherwise (spending all my time compensating for my time perception problems), nobody would show up at the funeral at all.

You just reminded me of the time I was driving and saw a hearse pulled over on the side of the road, casket in back with the driver in shirtsleeves under the hood. My first thought was: "somebody really is late for their own funeral!"

You're late (when you are) for the right reasons, not just because you can't watch a clock or don't care. Some things are vastly more important than a schedule or clock.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you get paid for it?

No, I recieve a stipend.
Tomayto tomahto.
I am on time when I am not stipended - money has nothing to do with my relationship with God (or my brothers and sisters).

And sorry Anselmina I am not stipended to be more available more of the time.

Lastly; It is not about "productivity" it is about priorities and where we place them.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:


There have been times when I have purposely arrived late for church. My wife and I separated last year, and one thing that I sometimes don't want to face at church is the awkward small talk that happens. I want to go in, sit at the back and be part of the service, then leave at the end. It's either arrive late so I don't have to face too many watery smiles, or not go at all. There may be a whole host of other reasons why people are arriving late, and I doubt we've scratched the surface of what those might be here. Rather than assuming that it's because they're either failures or rude, why not assume the best of each other?

Something like this is the reason I am persistently late to church, though it isn't intentional, and it isn't under my control. I wish it was, because I'd like to stop.

I come very late to church, when I go at all, because I am trying to avoid hearing a sermon like the one I heard at the church I was then attending, in 2002, after Gene Robinson's election as bishop. (I am in the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida.)

It was one of those moments of trauma when time stretches out while the experience becomes fixed for a lifetime. I was still very new to the area in 2002, which is culturally the rural US South. The thought came to me that I didn't know my priest or my fellow parishioners at all, and that they were not at all safe. I knew this while it was happening but I haven't been able to do anything since to compensate. It affects everything I do here, but church-going most of all.

I don't ever manage to get myself to church on time, and most Sundays I don't go at all, even though I want to.

Even though I have had assurances from all sorts of people, including the interim priest at the church, that I won't hear something like that in church again.

Even though the Diocese has a new bishop, who has invited the Presiding Bishop to visit, and even though the website now proclaims that DioCFL is a member of the Episcopal Church.

Even though there is a rather lonely woman acquaintance in the choir who was probably hoping to see me today, and even though I wanted to see her.

It's avoidance, pure and simple. That's how I tame my chaos. It's the reverse of Anselmina's method. I don't overprepare; I just don't turn up. I stay home alone, where it always feels safer. (Of course, unlike Anselmina, I'm merely a member of the congregation, and under DioCFL rules, I can't be anything more, so, as I tell myself, if I don't go, I will hardly be missed.)
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
Grammatica: I miss you. Even though I'm in the opposite corner of the country, I'm really sorry that you're not there, that your light is not there. Sounds to me like it is sorely needed, but this is not a criticism of your decision. Just an observation that when we run off people like you, we are the poorer for it.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
At my Lutheran church yesterday: A good 40 minutes into the service, and about halfway through her sermon, my pastor's face suddenly lit up and she said the happiest, warmest, "Hi Warren!" you've ever heard. We all turned to see our 95 year-old Warren ducking into the back pew mumbling something about being late. Then she said, "You're not late, Warren! You're here!" and we all laughed and clapped and Warren blushed with pleasure.

I didn't really understand her words but her message of love was well understood by everyone.

Grammatica, can't you vote with your feet? It's what I did and I'm so glad I did.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
While my situation is nowhere like Grammatica's, for which I have some sympathy, having lived in a peculiar parish situation for some years, I find that the social chatter before services uncomfortable for me. When I am with my mother in Florida, she revels in this, so I drive her to her parish about 15-20 minutes in advance, so that she can join in it (this parish provides a table at the back of the church with coffee and pastries to facilitate before-service interaction). When I am on my own, I realize that I established a practice of being just 10 minutes late so that I can avoid it. While I know that most of my churchgoing friends greatly value the social aspect, not everyone does.
 
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Grammatica, can't you vote with your feet? It's what I did and I'm so glad I did.

The thing is, things really have gotten better in the diocese and the parish. But I seem to have frozen up in my moment of trauma. I'm not responding to the "DioCFL Spring" the way I'd like to.

Twilight, that was a wonderful story!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
When I am on my own, I realize that I established a practice of being just 10 minutes late so that I can avoid it. While I know that most of my churchgoing friends greatly value the social aspect, not everyone does.

I have a lot of sympathy with this. When not on duty. I try to arrive bang on time to avoid chatter - much to my annoyance, they will then start up to 8 minutes late!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Been pondering this.

I am punctillious.

For 2 reasons:

1) as a teacher, I had to be on time for all classes - otherwise they climb up the walls and beak stuff and i am responsible as being in loco parentis

2) don't drive so have to be at the bus stop early, rather on time.

I have friends who criticise me for being on time as if it were a crime.

Today's Metro suggests that half of us are punctual, the other half not.


quote:
pUNCTUAL people think late people are selfish, disŽorganised or lazy. But it's more complicated than that. We are the opposite of lazy. We hate wasting time — so much so that we cram every last second with purposeful activity. If I have a 30-minute journey to a 9am meeting and I'm ready to leave at 8.25, I think: `Five whole minutes. I'll send an email, put washing on...' Suddenly it's 8.45am.

 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
pUNCTUAL people think late people are selfish, disŽorganised or lazy. But it's more complicated than that. We are the opposite of lazy. We hate wasting OUR OWN time

Fixed that for you.
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
I'm Orthodox. On a typicla sunday Liturgy starts at 10am in most Orthodox Churches. in theory. in practice, the Hours are read before that, and Liturgy starts when the Hours are done. which could be at 10, or at 9:50, or at 10:10... Not that it matters much, since nearly NO ONE gets there for the very start of Liturgy (in my, primarily Russian, cathedral. primarily convert churches are different, and small parishes may also be different). if you are there before the third Antiphon, you're considered early. If you get there before the cherubic hymn, you are doing pretty well. If you get there before the "Our Father", you won't be the last one there. (I know people, primarily those with small children, who show up right before communion, but that's not the norm).

Keeping in mins that a) the service is well over an hour long, usually; b) we stand for the whole thing (no pews), c) there is a lot of in and out throughout the service, as well as a lot of movement within the church.. people going up to light candles in various aread around the church, people venerating the icons, people seeing a friend across the room and moving to stnad next to them.... not to mention people deciding they need a break in the church hall for a bit to sit down... so someone coming in late is barely noticed. it's not a big deal (to the congregation).

A number of years ago I started attending a small mission parish. we all got there before services to set up (becuse we were renting a kids dance studio), sang the whole time (because not many singers), and stayed for fellowship after. That was new for me. not how I grew up. I got used to that. Now that I no longer attend that small parish, I am still used to the idea of showing up at the beginning of liturgy or earlier, so that's what I do. But I really don't pay attention to people coming in late. I am more likely to notice other "breaches of church etiquette", such as lighting candles during the Cherubic.. not that I say anything. I try not to judge and just assume they don't know any better, but I do notice. latecomers, not so much.
 


Đ Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0