Thread: Fighting the Liturgical War 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=025869

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Copied from Hell thread (The Episcopal Church)

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I fight the liturgical war all the time, even to the point of defending the use of lectionary readings at all. The list could go on and on... For me, TEC does offer quite a bit: priests trained in liturgy (even the most contemporary-leaning around here respect the Rite), proper ablutions and tabernacles or aumbries...

'Fight the liturgical war' - why? We've all got personal preferences, of course, but your concerns seem based on something deeper. What are proper ablutions, tabernacles and aumbries; how do improper versions of those things differ? How do we know which is proper and which is improper? Why does this all matter so much that it's worth 'fight[ing] the liturgical war' over?

Questions all somewhat rhetorical, but I'll be interested to read any answers you're inclined to give. Maybe a discussion for a separate (non-Hellish?) thread? [Smile]

Mind you, I do agree on the basic hygienic issue regarding pouring unconsumed communion wine / juice back into the container. [Eek!]

Why fight? Imagine this:

You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book. What you find is the following:

Worship Time (lots of songs, trad and contemp)
Sermon Time
Communion Time (no consecration, no words, just passing bread and wine around)

Nothing more than that. Now, imagine you decide that this is simply not what you're looking for. You wish them well, make empty promises about coming back sometime, and you make your way to a succession of other churches, journeying farther and farther away, to the point of sixty minute one-way trips.

You know that you believe Christ is truly present in the Holy Sacrament. What does that take? You think it out, and come to the conclusion that you have only your Church of England formation (from your old church) to go by, and frankly, none of the local churches fits the bill.

/End Scene

Why does it matter? You have consciously chosen to remain Anglican. You have a commitment to what the church is, as a whole, but the local congregations do not attain to that.

Now for my situation: in Lutheranism, there is always a strong pull to simplify. It's almost an ingrained embarrassment of following a liturgical text. This does not afflict the whole country, but it is unfortunately quite prevalent where I live. If I belong to a local congregation that represents that denomination, as a whole, and yet is always tending towards Local Practice, I am going to do what I can to help keep things more attuned to who we are as a whole, rather than who the local pastor wants us to be.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
My little connection has few Rules but lots of Guidelines. Some ministers like liturgy, some don't.

I fought the battle by becoming Worship Elder. And then co-operating with the minster to improve the services. Eventually he joined in of his own volition. [Two face]

Anyway, my church does Average Family-oriented Hymn Sandwich Protestant. The minister is a good preacher and we have a nice Sunday school. The hymns are traditional. It's church like people remember church, and that's our thing. And people like sacraments to feel like sacraments, it's holy and special. Our revised baptism service is a "Go Big" service, but when you have the extended family there, what else are you going to do?

I may have a greater tolerance than most here for off-lectionary readings, personal liturgy revisions and the like but as I said to our minister, liturgy also is there to keep us from saying unfortunate (heretical) things in sacraments. It is applied doctrine.

That actually went over well. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
SPK, I too have found that diplomacy often accomplishes quite a bit. I can assure you that I am quite levelheaded and diplomatic, and that I compromise regularly, despite the image that the thread title may convey.

I do grow weary of defending things that have been considered normative for Lutherans since the very beginning, such as the reading of the Gospel at the Sunday morning Holy Communion. I certainly refuse to be branded a wacky liturgical oddball for defending such a thing.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
You generally do not think of it as being a problem but the present generation of clergy, or those ordained 10 years ago, I am not sure which, do want to dump part of our rich liturgical heritage. The usual victims are Morning Prayer, the Litany, and Evening Prayer. The Communion service is safe, provided I can keep the additions to what the rubrics provde for, but the daily Office tradition has to be fought for these days.

I imagine I piss off my clergy no end by insisting that they use Morning and Evening Prayer on a regular basis, but my campaign has met with some success. From one parish doing MP and EP with some regularity, we not have three, and that's without my exercising my episcopal prerogative and issuing 'instructions.'

I feel for you, Olaf, because your church has a rich tradition which a lot of Lutheran Pastors seem to be intent on dumping just at the point at which Evangelical Catholicism is becoming important again. The future church is going to be a lot smaller, tighter, and more focussed than what we have seen in the dying throws of "Christian America" (TM).

PD

[ 15. July 2013, 06:02: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
in Lutheranism, there is always a strong pull to simplify. It's almost an ingrained embarrassment of following a liturgical text. This does not afflict the whole country, but it is unfortunately quite prevalent where I live. If I belong to a local congregation that represents that denomination, as a whole, and yet is always tending towards Local Practice, I am going to do what I can to help keep things more attuned to who we are as a whole, rather than who the local pastor wants us to be.

Olaf, thanks for your gracious response to what were, let's be honest, somewhat snarky questions. I still don't 'get' it, in the sense of grasping fully why you care so much about these things, but I understand your situation better now. So, thank you.

On the specific points I've quoted, I guess I personally see 'keep[ing] things more attuned to who we are as a whole' in terms of the spirit of how things are done, rather than the precise details. So, for me, if I were trying to find a church similar to the one I'm currently part of, I'd look for similar attitudes (like everyone having opportunity to contribute, 'worship' being understood in a much broader sense than just meaning singing songs to God) more than I'd look for similar procedures / practices. Hope that makes sense...
 
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 
Once a year our Presbyterian congregation are the guests of our Anglican neighbours – we exchange visits to fit in with clergy summer holidays. For two years in a row the vicar elected to make it the occasion for a cafe-style 'liturgy' in the hall. A tactful word to a vestry friend ensured that next time we got a recognisable Anglican liturgy in the church. We do appreciate the occasional more formal attraction of the now familiar ritual.

GG
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I do grow weary of defending things that have been considered normative for Lutherans since the very beginning, such as the reading of the Gospel at the Sunday morning Holy Communion. I certainly refuse to be branded a wacky liturgical oddball for defending such a thing.

Are there no allies you can call on for support?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
SPK, I too have found that diplomacy often accomplishes quite a bit. I can assure you that I am quite levelheaded and diplomatic, and that I compromise regularly, despite the image that the thread title may convey.

I do grow weary of defending things that have been considered normative for Lutherans since the very beginning, such as the reading of the Gospel at the Sunday morning Holy Communion. I certainly refuse to be branded a wacky liturgical oddball for defending such a thing.

Even we have the Gospel reading at the Eucharist.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
The Liturgical War - bloody, but beautifully choreographed.

But seriously, folks... I've been doing a lot of reading recently about the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk, the "total work of art". The concept is central to Wagner's ideas about how his operas were to work. Gesamtkunstwerk is the co-ordination of every kind of artistic endeavour that can go into, say, the production of an opera - not only music but poetry, stagecraft, dance, scene-building, lighting and so on. If any one of these were neglected, the Gesamtkunstwerk would not be achieved.

My view of liturgy is very similar. Liturgy is not just words in a book, or a didactic lecture posing as a sermon. Liturgy involves music, prose, poetry, movement, and even architecture and design. Like Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk it's also proletarian (an aspect he never really achieved) in that the people are not an audience, but are an integral part of the action.

To me, every one of these aspects is essential. If I'm guest-presiding at a church and I'm told they don't elevate the Communion elements, it gives me an itch between my shoulder-blades - because to me the action is as essential as the words. Normally I would no more think about not elevating than I would about leaving out a paragraph of the eucharistic prayer because it suited me.

I'm not saying there's only one right way to do a liturgy (any more than there's only one right way to stage an opera): each community should have the liturgy that is natural and proper to it. I think, for me, it's tinkering with the liturgy that gets me donning the armour for the Liturgical War. Constantly messing about with the details of the liturgy is like thinking it would be a good idea to rewrite Shakespeare's sonnets as limericks.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
The idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk, which is a crucially important one in opera--and the reason why supertitles are a bad thing--seems to me to be of central importance here. The liturgy takes place on multiple staves, with different instruments working out, by the grace of God, a full depth of meaning.
 
Posted by Arch Anglo Catholic (# 15181) on :
 
There are strange things afoot in many places!

I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.

Now I might well just be a stuffy old coot, but I take the vows of obedience I have taken quite seriously. The Declaration of Assent is very clear and provides
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

Now that is very straightforward isn't it?
It means, inter alia, I suggest that unless otherwise authorised, I must use the forms of service approved by the Church, not confected by me at my whim.

I'm obedient because I promised to be, and if the congregation can't trust my word in this, what can they trust?
I try to do what is right, because I'm not much of an example if I don't.

Is it a fight? I'm not sure, but personal integrity, provided that it is balanced with charity and humour, is essential in my opinion, so struggle on, keep smiling and best of luck!
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
It's very important that we get liturgy right, after all, it is the prayer of the Church which contains the faith of the Church. In the liturgy Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people. It is also important that a priest, deacon, acolyte etc. follow the rubrics. The rubrics are there so that the liturgy can be served with dignity without thew priest being able to impose his own personality on it.

Fight the good fight.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I suspect that what is going on is a manifestation of modern society to turn life into a spectator sport. The biggest churches around here tend to put on a moderately good Christian themed show on Sunday mornings at 9am and 11am, have Starbucks in the lobby, and cup holders on the pews - erm - seats. However, the "liturgy" is such that the people are not really involved except as spectators.

I suspect that in the case of American Lutheranism, the assimilationist streak in the culture is at work. In the 19th C. this tended to manifest itself in an abridgement of the Liturgy to make it more protestant, black gowns, special music, and a general tendancy to try and partly assimilate Lutheranism into Anglo-Saxon Evangelical culture. However, repeated waves of immigrants tended to slow this slide towards Methobaptigational norms. This was followed by a fairly static period 1900-1950, and a successful push back between 1950 and 1990, but the tide seems to be running the other way again. Hopefully, as the dechristianization of America culture, which has been underway since the 1960s really begins to bite, there will be a push back against assimilationism once more.

PD
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Are there no allies you can call on for support?

Yes, the majority of the congregation, whom I have known for decades and with whom I have had many liturgical chats over the years. I can even name favorite hymns for many.

That said, I choose not to go about it this way. Typically it's easier to 'win a battle' if it is done on a one-on-one basis. I don't want to create a big gang-up situation. (Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind, were a heretical issue to arise.)

quote:
PD:
...the tide seems to be running the other way again.

Good summary of the state of affairs for the past century or so. The tide indeed is running the other way again. One never knows what one will encounter when visiting an ELCA place, and for this reason I tend not to visit ELCA places when I'm out of the area. The oddest oddball liturgical eccentricities rear their ugly heads.

My 'favorite': the 'contemporary' service that was supposed to draw in the youth and unchurched, held at the prime Sunday morning time which attracts about 1/20th the attendance of the 'traditional' service. Give it up, people. Your folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy appeals to no one, and you don't have adequate musical support for your 'contemporary' (to the mid-1980s, anyway) music.

In which Olaf vents to no one in particular:

Just say the black, and do the red, people!

Yearn for change? Work at a bank.

[ 16. July 2013, 23:01: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!

I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
*snip*

A wicked and flippant deacon would copy out one of the authorized texts, word for word, and present it as their own creation, based on prayer, diligent study of scripture, and an enthusiastic embrace of the diverse cultures of the country.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
My 'favorite': the 'contemporary' service that was supposed to draw in the youth and unchurched, held at the prime Sunday morning time which attracts about 1/20th the attendance of the 'traditional' service. Give it up, people. Your folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy appeals to no one, and you don't have adequate musical support for your 'contemporary' (to the mid-1980s, anyway) music.

At least they were trying to reach the unchurched... In my (fairly limited) experience and from what I've read, people with no background in Christian faith generally find most of the ways we 'do' church utterly alien and irrelevant. The 'folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy' and more contemporary music are ways of trying to make what we do on Sunday when we gather together a bit more relevant and appealing (I don't think that's a bad thing!) to those who don't know the first thing about the Christian faith.

Mind you, my personal view is that something more radical is needed, but at least Olaf's people were acknowledging that some of our ways and practices are off-putting to unchurched people, and were trying to do something about that. Let's celebrate that, not decry it. (I know there's a problem here for some more liturgically-inclined people and churches - if you think there are certain ways we must do things when we gather as church then how relevant unchurched people find those ways is, well, not relevant!)
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Mind you, my personal view is that something more radical is needed, but at least Olaf's people were acknowledging that some of our ways and practices are off-putting to unchurched people, and were trying to do something about that. Let's celebrate that, not decry it. (I know there's a problem here for some more liturgically-inclined people and churches - if you think there are certain ways we must do things when we gather as church then how relevant unchurched people find those ways is, well, not relevant!)

That's not how you make disciples though, that is by trying to make the prayer of the Church more "relevant" (whatever that's supposed to mean). The prayer of the Church is really only meant for those who already believe. Disciples are made by loving God and your neighbour as yourself.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
At least they were trying to reach the unchurched... In my (fairly limited) experience and from what I've read, people with no background in Christian faith generally find most of the ways we 'do' church utterly alien and irrelevant. The 'folksy, self-written, oddly-ordered liturgy' and more contemporary music are ways of trying to make what we do on Sunday when we gather together a bit more relevant and appealing (I don't think that's a bad thing!) to those who don't know the first thing about the Christian faith.

As it happens, it was the liturgy that drew me to faith. I had had a couple of friends take me to services more along the "folksy, contemporary music" lines, and they just seemed silly. (I'm not decrying the way that these people prefer to worship - these were the impressions my unchurched, rather agnostic self had.)

And then I got taken along to a fairly Anglo-Catholic place - smells, bells, genuflecting and liturgy to the max, and something stuck. Here were these ordinary, normal people with ordinary normal jobs doing these odd things - they must actually mean it. And I kept going back.

Leo, professional oddball.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Sorry AO, I don't understand your point... If people are reluctant to come to our services and join in with our praising of God because the way we do things is alien and irrelevant to them, isn't that quite a big problem? I think, unless we're of the opinion that our worship practices simply must not be amended at a local level, then we should think about how to make what we do more relevant and appealing to those with no knowledge or experience of Christianity. (Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And then I got taken along to a fairly Anglo-Catholic place - smells, bells, genuflecting and liturgy to the max, and something stuck. Here were these ordinary, normal people with ordinary normal jobs doing these odd things - they must actually mean it. And I kept going back.

That's great! I'm pretty confident that you're in a minority but good for you, and praise the Lord that you came to faith in Him through high liturgy. [Smile]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QB] Sorry AO, I don't understand your point... If people are reluctant to come to our services and join in with our praising of God because the way we do things is alien and irrelevant to them, isn't that quite a big problem? I think, unless we're of the opinion that our worship practices simply must not be amended at a local level, then we should think about how to make what we do more relevant and appealing to those with no knowledge or experience of Christianity. (Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)

What I'm saying is that your starting point is completely wrong. You won't make disciples by making your worship more "relevant" (again, whatever that's supposed to mean). One makes disciples by going out and loving God and your neighbour as yourself (the Commandments). Then comes a period of catechesis which includes liturgical formation.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What I'm saying is that your starting point is completely wrong. You won't make disciples by making your worship more "relevant" (again, whatever that's supposed to mean). One makes disciples by going out and loving God and your neighbour as yourself (the Commandments). Then comes a period of catechesis which includes liturgical formation.

Ah, okay; thanks. I guess I'm not thinking of making worship more 'relevant' as a disciple-making thing, certainly not by itself. It's more about inviting people in to the church community where the disciple-making can then happen.

What I mean by 'making worship more relevant' is things like: using contemporary language in our church services, using at least some contemporary music, explaining how (and why!) we do the various things in the service (and not being disapproving or judgemental when people do the 'wrong' thing, liturgically-speaking), teaching in ways that reflect current educational research (e.g. as opposed to always having a monologue sermon). Others will mean different things when they use the word 'relevant' in a church context, but that's a flavour of what I'm getting at. [Smile]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Authenticity. "Folksy" (whatever that means), contemporary etc. etc. worship will always seem silly and cheesy if it's not an authentic expression of the people doing it.

The question is not "what forms will bring people in to our church", because the answer is "none"; the people outside the church don't know what you're doing and they're unlikely to read your pew leaflet/notice board/website and find out. It's more "is what we are doing an authentic expression of worship for us?"
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Ad Orientum, I think your view of mission is correct.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that it's logical to insist that disciples made in the way you suggest must needs be added to a church whose liturgy is trapped in amber.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think this is the key to it irrespective of what tradition we come from or style of worship we favour:

'And then I got taken along to a [add church of style of worship service] and something stuck. Here were these ordinary, normal people with ordinary normal jobs doing these odd things - they must actually mean it. And I kept going back.'

This can apply anyway and everywhere and also may not apply in each instance too ... but the key is authenticity.

I would agree with Ad Orientem that there is something about liturgical formation being part of the catechetical process. That applies everywhere.
People are socialised into these things.

I didn't take to worship songs and choruses immediately when I first encountered charismatic worship - for instance - still less the 'speaking in tongues' and the dancing and waving of arms and so on. But I stuck with it and became acclimatised to it.

The same thing applies with more traditional and liturgical forms of worship.

I would agree that the Orthodox have much to learn from other churches on how to explain things - although a kind of 'stop-start' commentary would break the flow of Orthodox Liturgical worship. What I've seen, though, is that in some jurisdictions at least they use Power-Point, small-group discussions and so on in conferences and seminars - but don't go in for any of that when it comes to the worship itself.

I'm completely of the view that worship should be conducted in a 'language understanded of the people' but I'm not entirely convinced that contemporary tunes and arrangements are always the way forward.

This is a hobby-horse of mine, but I am increasingly convinced that the parlous state of much charismatic evangelical catechesis where people who ought to know better have a very sketchy grasp at best of the wider tradition and the great Christological and Trinitarian formularies is down to the dumbing down of the diet in terms of worship and liturgy.

You can't come away from an Orthodox service in English without realising that these people worship Christ as God, the Holy Spirit as God and God the Father as God - One God in Three Persons, One in Essence and Undivided.

You could easily be forgiven for not getting that impression down at your local charismatic church or even Anglican parish ...
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Rather depends how one views the liturgy, I suppose. When considering the ancient liturgies, for instance, such as the Byzantine or old Roman, I would view them as being essentially equal to scripture. Just my view, of course, though you'll see similar views by St. Gregory the Great, for instance.

I understand the original poster is a Lutheran. I live in a country which is about 80% Lutheran and I was myself baptised as an infant into the Lutheran Church. Maybe I was lucky but in my experience I never witnessed much innovation. Everything was more or less by the book.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I've come across the Orthodox idea that the Liturgy is pneumatic and itself a conveyor of spiritual truth in a similar way to the scriptures ... indeed the whole kit and kaboodle is part of the 'seamless robe' of Tradition.

So iconography, Liturgy, the scriptures, ritual, church architecture, chant and everything else works together as a seamless whole ...

I quite like that idea, to be honest.

I suspect it's there to a less 'realised' extent in some of the other traditions. Certainly some elements within Anglicanism would take a similar approach.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)

But for many Christians, especially the Orthodox of whom I believe AO is one, the liturgy is part of the Christian message.

The Gospel doesn't exist in a box which we can market in different ways and wrap up in stylish modern graphics or antique brocade as it takes our fancy. The Gospel is communicated through the way ordinary Christians live and worship. So I'm not saying everyone should worship in AO's preferred style, or according to Common Worship, or whatever - just that worship must have integrity and be part and parcel of a particular Christian culture.
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Regarding Olaf's comments on "contemporary" Lutheran services, we started offering a contemporary service a decade ago and it was supposed to draw young people and the unchurched. All it really did was cannibalize attendance at the traditional services because it was shorter and held at more convenient times. It also introduced a dumbed-down liturgy (WOV) and some really poor hymns.

One cannot underestimate the influence of Lutheran Pietism on liturgical practices in the 19th cent. and 20th cent. through about 1950ish. The publication of the SBH tried to revive traditional Western liturgical practice. It also seems that seminaries, at least here in the East, have produced a generation of clergy far more attuned to traditional liturgical practice that in the past.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
(Note, I'm not saying we should change the Christian message itself in order to make it more relevant and appealing!)

But for many Christians, especially the Orthodox of whom I believe AO is one, the liturgy is part of the Christian message.
Sure, that's fair enough. For those who view their liturgy in that way, changing the liturgy is obviously problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The Gospel doesn't exist in a box which we can market in different ways and wrap up in stylish modern graphics or antique brocade as it takes our fancy. The Gospel is communicated through the way ordinary Christians live and worship. So I'm not saying everyone should worship in AO's preferred style, or according to Common Worship, or whatever - just that worship must have integrity and be part and parcel of a particular Christian culture.

I don't understand what you're getting at, apologies! Take for example a church that mainly uses songs written in the last ten years and either doesn't use liturgy or has written its own. Are you saying such a church would be lacking integrity, and would be treating the gospel like it 'exist[s] in a box which we can market in different ways'?

I think Karl:Liberal Backslider had it right a few posts ago; however we 'do' church, it must be with authenticity, reflecting the gifts and culture of the people who comprise that church (while still, I'd say - and maybe Karl would too, I'm not sure - being accessible to newcomers, especially those with no heritage of Christian faith).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
[...]Why fight? Imagine this:

You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book. What you find is the following:

Worship Time (lots of songs, trad and contemp)
Sermon Time
Communion Time (no consecration, no words, just passing bread and wine around)

Nothing more than that. Now, imagine you decide that this is simply not what you're looking for. You wish them well, make empty promises about coming back sometime, and you make your way to a succession of other churches, journeying farther and farther away, to the point of sixty minute one-way trips.

You know that you believe Christ is truly present in the Holy Sacrament. What does that take? You think it out, and come to the conclusion that you have only your Church of England formation (from your old church) to go by, and frankly, none of the local churches fits the bill.

But imagine this:

You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book. What you find is the following:

- Only three hymns, and only one of them you recognise, and that an almost unsingable bit of early 20th century pseudo-mediaeval tosh
- All sorts of processions and odd rituals with incense and candles and crucifixes and fancy copies of the Bible performed by a gang of blokes dressed up in robes, which you are expected to sit quietly and watch even though you haven't the slightest idea what is supposed to be going on.
- Large chunks of the liturgy missing, and even larger ones changed for what you suspect might be a Roman catholic version
- Quite a lot of the liturgy that you do recognise chanted by a choir or cantor while everyone else sits still and doesn't join in
- People in the pews bobbing up and down, crossing themselves, turning round at various points, in ways that you don't understand and couldn't join in with because you have no idea what they are doing or why they are doing it.
- no real sermon, just five minutes of moralising "Thought for the Day" style chat (and apart from that little homily no words directly addressed to you at all)
- the Creed and the Lord's Prayer in Latin, for some unexplained reason
- a liturgy of the sacrament that goes on for half an hour performed by three blokes dressed up in weird robes mumbling words you hardly recognise when you are lucky enough to be able to hear them at all.
- Communion being little tasteless wafers and something like sweet sherry rather than ordinary bread and wine
- and at the end, quite unprompted, everyone turns round to face sideways and recites what seems to be a poem about Mary being the Queen of Heaven. Most of it makes no sense to you, and the bits that do seem to be superstitious heresy.

Nothing more than that. Now, imagine you decide that this is simply not what you're looking for. You wish them well, make empty promises about coming back sometime, and you make your way to a succession of other churches, journeying farther and farther away, to the point of sixty minute one-way trips. Most Sunday mornings leave you feeling confused, ignored, and bored.

You know that you believe Christ is truly present in the prayers and praises of his people. What does that take? You think it out, and come to the conclusion that you have only your Church of England formation (from your old church) to go by, and frankly, none of the local Anglican churches fits the bill. So you sneak off to a Baptist church where the preaching is from the Bible and auimed at you, and where you get a chance to participate in worhsip that makes sense to you (while feeling slightly guilty because you miss proper Holy Communion, and you don't really agree with them about baptism.)

That's pretty much what a lot of Anglicanism in South London or in Brighton would look like to most Anglicans who turned up unprepared, MOTR ones never mind evangelicals. I don't mind it myself, but then I've now had a few decades to get used to it. To newcomers to the area (or to the CofE from other Protestant churches) it can seem very weird and cliquey and off-putting. OK I exaggerate a little. There will be very few churches that do all ten of the things I listed there. But none of them is made-up - they all happen at churches within walking distance of me. And at least one local church has eight of them, and quite a few five or six.

So should we keep on fighting for authorised liturgy, congregational participation, hymns and songs that talk about Jesus Christ, language "understanded of the people", real bread and wine, sermons with some meat in them and based on the Word of God and addressed to the situation of the congregation, rather than what we all too often get?

[ 17. July 2013, 17:52: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Ken, I don't like "real" bread, 'cos I don't care to have to genuflect to the church's Hoover.
 
Posted by ChippedChalice (# 14057) on :
 
All of this discussion seems to me a perfect illustration of the old Latin maxim de gustibus non disputandum est.

Some people like more informal "folksy" worship and find that an effective evangelism tool.

Others, like me, prefer more formal worship, including smells, bells, chants, etc. -- and for them, THAT is they way to spread the kingdom.

I think the trick is try to do well whichever form most appeals to you. (And for not everyone in the neighborhood to try the same style.)

And, of course, to not think your own preferred liturgical style as heaven-mandated.

(Quick clarification: I DO think some liturgical matters ARE heaven-mandated -- the use of water and the name of the Trinity in Baptism, for example.)
 
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
Olaf and I have commiserated before on threads like this. The problem with Lutheran Liturgy is that though we have had gifted teachers and liturgists to guide us, it is NOT the glue that holds the church together as it is in other traditions. While our Episcopal Neighbors have the Book of Common Prayer, we have only a congregation's desire to purchase and use the latest worship book our church puts forth. Within the ELCA today you can find congregations using the Evangelical Lutheran Worship(2006), Lutheran Book of Worship (1978), Service Book and Hymnal (1958) some variety of Lutheran Worship, published by the Missouri Synod in 1980, or their new Lutheran Service Book, published just a few years ago. Or other kinds of hymnals, Song Books, or Texts at the congregation's (or their pastor's) pleasure.

At our place our predecessor gave the congregation a chanted liturgy by the book (LBW)
with Communion twice a month and ante-communion on the other weeks. We now celebrate Holy Communion every week using a chanted. liturgy by the book (ELW) Together we represent over 25 years of a decent liturgical tradition. But the next pastor may throw it all out the window and do something different. I would say, to add misery to Olaf's OP, that we are in a time of liturgical de-evolution. The mandated change in the RC liturgical books also did not help because now common texts have been lost.

And we haven't even touched on lectionary texts. Many congregations in the ELCA are following something called "The Narrative Lectionary" which is a complete abandonment of the 3-year lectionary. Others are using the Revised Common Lectionary, still others are using the original Lutheran version of the 3-year lectionary, which conforms more closely to the Roman Catholic version.

For me, I make it my discipline to do the Liturgy as best as I know how to do it, and to let the future be in God's hands. I should say also that because we have so many former RC's in our congregation, the majority of our people are quite satisfied with the liturgy as we do it.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
Olaf and I have commiserated before on threads like this. The problem with Lutheran Liturgy is that though we have had gifted teachers and liturgists to guide us, it is NOT the glue that holds the church together as it is in other traditions.

If this isn't too much of a tangent: what is? This is intended, I should say, as an appreciative and inquisitive question, not argumentatively. Would a Confession work for this?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf and ken:



You're an Anglican, and you move somewhere new. You walk into the local Anglican church, knowing that it's going to be slightly different from your old church, which used Common Worship Rite 1, by-the-book.

Ken: I sympathise with your list. Pendulums swing, and I think they have swung too far yet again. (Well I would, wouldn't I, being Anglican?).

Imagine this.

It is 1950 or maybe earlier. You are Anglican, and you walk into the local Anglican church where instead of Mattins from the Book of Common Prayer, with chanted psalms and long readings and an interminable sermon by the Vicar, you find something that you had been led to believe was Roman Catholic. Priest in strange vestments, grey scented smoke virtually hiding him from view, unfamiliar chants and some ceremony which you think might have something to do with the unfamiliar practice of Holy Communion, which you have only rarely experienced and seemed very different from this. There are copies of the BCP in the pews but the liturgy as performed is impossible to follow in it. Or you enter another church where Morning Prayer is advertised, and it is superficially similar to the Mattins you know, but there are lots of unfamiliar choruses and the vicar, instead of preaching sedately from the pulpit, walks up and down the aisles issuing a personal challenge to each and every person present. You feel equally uncomfortable but in a different way.

Fast forward to the mid-1970s. Church A will have Parish Communion as the main service; the rite will follow the green booklets almost word for word, the vicar will wear a chasuble and there may be robed assistants at the altar. You go to church B and although the noticeboard says 'Sung Mass', what you get is recognisably the same thing: there is a bit more colour and movement in the sanctuary and lots of incense, but you can follow the liturgy in the same green book and receive communion in the way you are accustomed. Or you go to church C and although ceremonial is mostly noted for its absence, and some people raise their hands during the (still unfamiliar) choruses or pray at length and extempore during the intercessions, it is still the same Communion service from the same green booklet.

Now you might go to A and find that they have abandoned Parish Communion on one Sunday a month for an All-Age Family Service, which follows no liturgy that you are familiar with, and you are denied the opportunity of communion. Or you go to B and even if the service follows the authorised rite of Common Worship it is a very idiosyncratic version thereof, with much borrowing from the Roman Catholics (or, they might even be using the new RC translation which means even the words of the Gloria or Creed are no longer recognisable). Or, you might go to C and literally anything goes (the noticeboard will probably say Morning Worship with no indication of when if ever Communion is celebrated)

I would just want to scream and pray for a Tardis to take me back to the church of my youth, or at least a long-distance flight to somewhere (anywhere) in TEC.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
But why should we expect things to be completely predictable when we drop in on a service of a church we're not familiar with? I don't have this expectation at all...

I quite like visiting distant friends or being on holiday and going to an unfamiliar church service - in fact, I should probably do it more often - as it shows me God can be praised and faith can be expressed in many different ways.
 
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
Hart asks about the glue that holds the church together for Lutherans. I would have to say that the short answer is the correct preaching of the Gospel, and the longer answer would be the Augsburg Confession.
In all Lutheran Worship the Sermon is primary. The basic reformation idea of justification by grace through faith is presented through the particular scriptural lessons of the day. That grace can not be merited, earned, or in any way gained by us, except for the sheer goodness of God. And that a suitable response to God's grace is repentance and thanksgiving.

The longer answer is the Augsburg Confession which sets out a Lutheran understanding of faith and church in an irenic way, as an attempt to prevent church division. In its articles both convergence and disagreement with the medieval Catholic church are presented. Sacraments are defined and specified, but already in the 16th century various church orders presented forms for worship, most of which were based on a reform of the Roman mass of the time.

This, at least, is a beginning of an answer to Hart's question.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The fact is, though, South Coast Kevin, I find most church services of whatever stripe fairly predictable. I bet if I rolled up at a Vineyard service I'd pretty much be able to second-guess what was going to happen.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But why should we expect things to be completely predictable when we drop in on a service of a church we're not familiar with? I don't have this expectation at all...

If I dropped into your church I would expect something I wasn't familiar with. If I dropped into an Orthodox church it would be different again. But if I was brought up as an Anglican expecting that Sunday worship included Word and Sacrament it's hard when you find half the menu is missing. Style and presentation are another matter.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm put in mind of the Brethren who used to say that their services were 'led by the Spirit' but which were in fact, virtually identical week by week ...

[Biased]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by uffda:
But the next pastor may throw it all out the window and do something different.

That pretty much sums it up!

I would argue that a worshipping community should worship in the manner that best suits them (not the pastor alone, or anybody's contrived vision of what people who don't come might want. ) However, do well what you have chosen to do. In other words, just use the book.

Then help to make it accessible to visitors.

Also, lest there be any confusion, I am not opposed to happy-clappy, folksy, or contemporary. I am opposed to poorly-done versions of them, which seems to be commonplace. (e.g. doctrinal errors in self-composed materials, creating oddball orders that are even more confusing than the normal order. Yes, I'm also opposed to poorly-done trad.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The fact is, though, South Coast Kevin, I find most church services of whatever stripe fairly predictable. I bet if I rolled up at a Vineyard service I'd pretty much be able to second-guess what was going to happen.

Be fair, I did say 'completely predictable'!
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If I dropped into your church I would expect something I wasn't familiar with. If I dropped into an Orthodox church it would be different again. But if I was brought up as an Anglican expecting that Sunday worship included Word and Sacrament it's hard when you find half the menu is missing. Style and presentation are another matter.

Understood. But from some of the comments (and from the exchange that prompted Olaf to start this thread), some folks are upset or disappointed when what seem to me like utter minutiae of the church service 'package' are not done according to their preferences. I certainly appreciate that a service lacking communion will seem incomplete if one is used to sharing bread and wine at each gathering of the church!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
The dear old C of E lost most of my family in the change over from MP to Parish Communion. Not that we were great churchgoers to start with, but Communion every week was a powerful and highly effective dissuasive, especiall went coupled to the decline of Evensong at the same time.

I only survived because I was the youngest and was the least set in my ways. I got cranky when they started trying to get rid of proper hymns (TM) in favour of silly-songs-about-God.

The other totally hopeless situation for me are those Anglo-Catholic parishes which remain locked in a 1950s timewarp. We have a lot of them in the Continuum, and from my point of view they are all equally dire. The ones that have accomodated themselves a little to liturgical reform actually do a good job, but the movement seems to be dominated by the RadTrads who seem to be intent on erecting their own particular liturgical Brigadoon.

All of which proves that significant change, frequent change, and no change at all are all about equally effective at emptying churches.

PD

[ 17. July 2013, 23:39: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, that is an issue ...

I do wonder about the Orthodox growth, though, in recent years ... not changing anything at all hasn't prevented them from picking up fellow-travellers.

Whilst the outward form of the Liturgy hasn't changed for a millenium+, the melodies - such as they are - have changed apparently even in comparatively recent times.

I suspect there's something symbiotic going on here. Would they have picked up so many converts and refugees from Western forms of Christianity if there hadn't been the liturgical changes of Vatican II on the one hand or the steady and remorseless dumbing down of Protestant worship on the other?

I suspect that if you plonked an Orthodox parish in the middle of a relatively unchurched area you wouldn't see a great deal of growth at all. The only reason that they can and do grow is because there are existing vestiges of small-o orthodoxy that they can draw on.

I might be wrong about that.

I'm not saying it's impossible for people of an unchurched background to find their way into Orthodoxy - it does happen and I've met people who have - but unless you have some basic idea of the structure of the Liturgy and what it's all about then you'd be absolutely lost if you simply wandered into one of their services.

That said, I still maintain that all of us are socialised and acclimatised into the Kingdom, at whatever point and in whatever setting we enter it.

I'm always struck here, for instance, how visitors and guests for baptisms and so on often comment on how 'lively' and 'welcoming' our local parish is and I hear second and third-hand comments filtering back through various sources that they liked the contemporary style of the music and so on ... yet that doesn't mean that you see them queueing up outside the following Sunday.

And, by the same token, I hear second and third-hand reports filtering back from some quarters as to how naff and cheesy it all is and how the vicar doesn't even wear a proper gown and it must be some kind of cult and ...
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Uffda, My notes for the next Worship & Music Committee indicate we'll be discussing a Narrative lectionary. Can you explain an give details.
 
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
ORGANMEISTER: I don't know a lot about it, since I'm not interested in using it, but it comes out of Luther seminary, and it purports to open up more of the narrative of the Old Testament. There's a lot of interest in it on the ELCA clergy facebook page. Of course for me the biggest drawback is the loss of the ecumenical 3 year lectionary for something idiosyncratic. I bet if you typed Narrative Lectionary into a search engine you'd track it to it's source. But apparently there are many Elca churches using it.
 
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
ORGANMEISTER: This is what you want!
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Gamaliel writes:
quote:
I suspect that if you plonked an Orthodox parish in the middle of a relatively unchurched area you wouldn't see a great deal of growth at all. The only reason that they can and do grow is because there are existing vestiges of small-o orthodoxy that they can draw on.

I might be wrong about that.

I'm not saying it's impossible for people of an unchurched background to find their way into Orthodoxy - it does happen and I've met people who have - but unless you have some basic idea of the structure of the Liturgy and what it's all about then you'd be absolutely lost if you simply wandered into one of their services.

I think in a long-gone thread, I described a discussion I had with a woman with no religious background whatsoever who had ended up with the Orthies (OCA and, for geographical rasons, later with the Antiochians) and she told me that she had become Xn on account of the example of two friends of hers, and of the local OCA priest's work with some very homeless people. She had no idea what to make of the services aside from the music being very interesting, but figured that if they were connected with what had drawn her in, that this was just fine. While it was all very odd, so was the society around her and in an unhealthy way.

She's been with them for the past ten years and is still working on the services. She has been to other churches in the interim and feels that she would have had more trouble developing trust in churches were personalities were more important.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
This interesting blog entry was forwarded to me today, which is relevant to the topic at hand: http://thechristianpundit.org/2013/07/17/young-evangelicals-are-getting-high/

My nephew (a Canadian Anglican organist serving in a Lutheran church) just sent me a lengthy and articulate response, salient points of which I shall try to post later.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I just love it when someone tries to explain what is happening in Lutheranism as if they have been to all Lutheran churches. Personally, I find a broad range of liturgical practices in the Lutheran churches I have attended. My congregation takes a balanced approach. We will change our liturgical service about every three months, After Easter we used a special mass that was commissioned by out congregation. Right now we are using the Sorrington Mass which was written by Marty Haugen, (GIA Publishers).

While we do not generally use the Morning Office we will go back to using the Evening Office for Midweek Services at the beginning of the new academic year.

We serve a town/gown population. I think this gives us the ability to vary our services quite frequently.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!

I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.
*snip*

A wicked and flippant deacon would copy out one of the authorized texts, word for word, and present it as their own creation, based on prayer, diligent study of scripture, and an enthusiastic embrace of the diverse cultures of the country.
[Overused]
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!

I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.

Now I might well just be a stuffy old coot, but I take the vows of obedience I have taken quite seriously. The Declaration of Assent is very clear and provides
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon…

Canon B5 of the Canons of the Church of England provides that
quote:
1. The minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorized by Canon B 1 according to particular circumstances.
Among things that are of substantial importance within the meaning of the Canon (an which therefore may not be changed) are Prayers of Confession, Absolution, and most of the Eucharistic Prayers.

Things that are variable include invitations to confession, biddings for Kyrie confessions, introductory words at the Peace, prayers at the Preparation of the Table, Proper Prefaces, Post Communion Prayers and Blessings.

There are many published resources aimed at enriching the provision for these parts of the service. For particular occasions someone good with words might craft a particular local or occasional variation. (Thus it is lawful within Canon Law to write a 'custom' Proper Preface for use with one of the Eucharistic Prayers for which Proper Prefaces may be used.) IMHO it shouldn't be overdone otherwise there ceases to be a standard from which it may be an attractive variation.

It should be noted, however, that
quote:
All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.

 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Well that's clear as mud, isn't it? No chance of overly broad interpretation there at all...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Personally I think every person who presides at communion should write their own Eucharistic prayer when they are training. This should follow on from a careful analysis of all the Eucharistic prayers in the CofE, the theology behind them and how they work in worship. Then should be asked to read it out with supplied copies to a small group of class mates for critique.

I suspect such a practice would be salutary for many, as they get a grip on the complexity and intention of the writers of these prayers, the way words are chosen to convey specific intentions.

Most I suspect will return with relief to the standard texts, having seen what a minefield their composers negotiated in producing them. A very few will relish the challenge and careful committee editing that is required to produce a good standard text. Those may well be your future liturgists.

Jengie
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I think it is a product of the controversies over "Ritualism" in the C19th.

Being the established Church, meant that the C of E had to use the law of the land to enforce its discipline. There were some fairly unedifying battles in the courts over the introduction of candles on the altar, wafers etc. The move from 1662 BCP and nothing but 1662 BCP has been (and still is) a bumpy ride.

The Canon sets some strict limits around some of the areas that were particularly controversial, and regards the rest as adiaphora provided that right doctrine, decency and good order are preserved.

In theory ministers are trained to know which areas are or aren't variable, and to understand right doctrine. So Canon B5 ought not to be difficult for them to understand. [Big Grin]

[Cross-posted with Jengie. Wise words indeed.]

[ 19. July 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: BroJames ]
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Personally I think every person who presides at communion should write their own Eucharistic prayer when they are training. This should follow on from a careful analysis of all the Eucharistic prayers in the CofE, the theology behind them and how they work in worship. Then should be asked to read it out with supplied copies to a small group of class mates for critique.

I suspect such a practice would be salutary for many, as they get a grip on the complexity and intention of the writers of these prayers, the way words are chosen to convey specific intentions.

Most I suspect will return with relief to the standard texts, having seen what a minefield their composers negotiated in producing them. A very few will relish the challenge and careful committee editing that is required to produce a good standard text. Those may well be your future liturgists.

Jengie

With all due respect, I dont understand either the purpose or the value of such an exercise, and I dont see what would warrant and justify it. Paul himself witnesses to the deeply traditional- transmitted from Our Lord himself -character of Eucharistic prayers when he cites the Words of Institutions (note that he only cites the efficacious words - his purpose was not to give an ethnographical account of early christian liturgy) in 1Cor11:23, doesn't he? But, of course, one's whole view of the matter may depend on one's view on the Sacrament, its efficacy, and its relation to the mystery of our Redemption. Personally, I prefer the Roman Canon and the Scottish 1764 one.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
As part of an educational process aimed at helping people to understand why the prayers are as they are, and to consider the multiplicity of issues which have shaped the canon, I would have thought it was a very useful exercise.

There have been translations into different languages and other adaptations from Paul onwards. There is early evidence that is suggestive of a much freer approach to the eucharistic prayers with limited fixed material in the days of the early Church.

In understanding how our much fuller fixed canon relates to the ancient core which Paul refers to, and as a way into getting into the heart and intention of the prayer I would have thought it was a very useful didactic exercise.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
As far as giving seminarians liturgy-composition classes, I think that they would benefit greatly by three or four months of writing haiku before they got their hands on the canon. Profundity in 17 syllables would help many of our liturgists. I fear that I am often left in a pew wondering: a) when this will ever end, and b) how unfortunate it is that I do not have my editing pencil handy.
 
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Uffda, Thanks for the link. It sounds like the latest ELCA fad. At least I'll be better prepared for that meeting next month.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The non-Conformist communion used to consist of just reading the 1 Corinthians passage and sharing the bread and wine. We call it the narrative of the institution and quite often in Reformed churches it is read separately from the great thanksgiving prayer of the Eucharist and seen as a warrant/authorisation for holding communion.

Most Eucharist prayers are not simply that but far more extended. For instance they normally include an epiclesis, a prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit. This is of course an addition to Paul's words. So do you include one? I have heard plenty without them. The presider is normally making a statement of their theological beliefs in so doing.

What is added, what is left out are important. They are talking about what people see as going on. You can not put a full treaties of the nature of the Eucharist within that prayer but you do subtly place it within the experience of faith.

Not an easy task to do, but one you might well under estimate unless you try it.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
As part of an educational process aimed at helping people to understand why the prayers are as they are, and to consider the multiplicity of issues which have shaped the canon, I would have thought it was a very useful exercise.

There have been translations into different languages and other adaptations from Paul onwards. There is early evidence that is suggestive of a much freer approach to the eucharistic prayers with limited fixed material in the days of the early Church.

In understanding how our much fuller fixed canon relates to the ancient core which Paul refers to, and as a way into getting into the heart and intention of the prayer I would have thought it was a very useful didactic exercise.

Agree with the Aleut.
Now, its not as if all the Eucharistic traditions were transmitted in a vacuum - we have the commentaries of the Fathers, Doctors and ancient rubricists. You rightly mention the notion of intention. But the question of intention in liturgy is obviously inseparable from the doctrine of the church. Thus the Non-jurors and the Scottish divines, realising that if anglicanism were to be true to itself, as a witness to the constant custom of the Church Catholick, it had to shed the deficient reformed understanding of salvation, and hence of the sacrament that re-presents it, undertook to revise the BCP Communion Service. And they did so with particular attention to the ancient formularies. And we should not forget under what duress they were and what persecutions they had to endure. - They were not just a bunch of trendy seminarians cooking up trendy, and let's admit it, pietistic eucharistic prayers between lectures on psychological self-fulfilment and Comparative Modern Pastoral Theology 01. Or a set of misguided roman catholic waxworks meddling with apocrypal texts and tampering with the Roman Missal in a backroom of the Vatican.

The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
@Jengie Jon

I'm sorry. I thought you were speaking of a CofE, or SEC context. Of course, whatever I've written does not apply to Nonconformists.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.

OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.

OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.

OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Aye, of course, Cranmer and his consorts...The Laudian divines (especially Cosin) , the Non-juror, the Scottish bishops - all saw the insufficiencies and deficiencies of the Cranmerian communion service. Regarding the Morning and Evening Services, bar Cranmer's Confession and Lectionary, they're pretty good as they follow and condense Western Hours in a remarkable manner. I find them definitely more traditional than post-V2 Liturgy of Hours - especially with the option of Quicumque Vult at Morning Prayer. I have no scruple saying Morning Prayer according to the Prayer prefaced by Pater and Ave and ending with Marian antiphons. I also have no scruple about praying for HM the Queen.

[ 19. July 2013, 13:42: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.

OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Possibly, but then I don't know enough to comment. I certainly think it's relevant in relation to the changes made to the Roman Rite since and including Trent. May God have mercy on their (Roman liturgical reformers) souls because if I was bishop of Rome I'd anathematise the bloody lot of them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Would that be before or after making your submission to Constantinople? [Smile]
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Naturally. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.

OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Possibly, but then I don't know enough to comment. I certainly think it's relevant in relation to the changes made to the Roman Rite since and including Trent. May God have mercy on their (Roman liturgical reformers) souls because if I was bishop of Rome I'd anathematise the bloody lot of them.
I think they've got more important issues, like the child molestation cover up, than arguing about the details of the liturgy, to issue anathemas against. This is exactly what pisses me off about this navel gazing - there are much more important fish to fry than exactly what words you use in the Eucharist. Really. There are. Much more important. Did I say Much More? Just in case, I'll say it again. Much More.

[ 19. July 2013, 14:18: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The fight for the liturgy cannot be better expressed than in the refusal of all attempts at artificial committee-baked liturgies imposed by ruthless and insensitive clerical bureaucracies.

OK, this is the best comment I've seen on this messageboard since I've been here. Well said!
Like Cranmer and his fellows back in 1549-52?
Possibly, but then I don't know enough to comment. I certainly think it's relevant in relation to the changes made to the Roman Rite since and including Trent. May God have mercy on their (Roman liturgical reformers) souls because if I was bishop of Rome I'd anathematise the bloody lot of them.
I think they've got more important issues, like the child molestation cover up, than arguing about the details of the liturgy, to issue anathemas against. This is exactly what pisses me off about this navel gazing - there are much more important fish to fry than exactly what words you use in the Eucharist. Really. There are. Much more important. Did I say Much More? Just in case, I'll say it again. Much More.
I think both sets of problems are important. If you have no regard for Truth, how can you pretend to uphold Morality? And it is clerical bureaucracy seeped as it is in opaque dealings and cover-up culture that need to be addressed. One cannot single out one aspect over the other. Wherein is this navel-gazing at all, I wonder. We seek to be oriented toward the Lord, in our Worship of Him, both in our liturgical and ethical lives which need to be connected.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?

My God we're doomed.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?

My God we're doomed.

Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?

My God we're doomed.

Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
Don't be silly. You appeared to equate them; I'm glad to hear you don't. So can we get rid of the equally silly idea that the church should be anathematising people for liturgical innovations that don't have your favour? And have a rational discussion about the relative importance of liturgical revisions, which to my mind are very much discussions about the orientation of sun-loungers on the White Star Line's top new boat for 1912?
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?

My God we're doomed.

Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
Don't be silly. You appeared to equate them; I'm glad to hear you don't. So can we get rid of the equally silly idea that the church should be anathematising people for liturgical innovations that don't have your favour? And have a rational discussion about the relative importance of liturgical revisions, which to my mind are very much discussions about the orientation of sun-loungers on the White Star Line's top new boat for 1912?
I think the Church should reinstate the ancient and PUBLIC discipline of penitence for all christians and those impious priests in particular, and also, introduce some canon that automatically deprives them of all clerical privileges. What I was also saying was that it was the same clerical culture of opacity of procedures and cover that enabled both the concoction and imposition of doubtful liturgical standards - for doubtful they are from a doctrinal point of view - and the illegal protection of foul priests.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Yes, there is certainly a link between the two. If one cannot be faithful in the "little" things then how can they be faithful in the "big" things? Abuse leads to abuse.

Lex orandi lex credendi.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're really putting kiddy fiddling on the same level as liturgy that you don't particularly care for?

My God we're doomed.

Are you just being dishonest, or what? Is trolling a favourite afternoon occupation of yours by any chance? Or would you like people filing for libel against you for misrepresentation of their ideas?
Don't be silly. You appeared to equate them; I'm glad to hear you don't. So can we get rid of the equally silly idea that the church should be anathematising people for liturgical innovations that don't have your favour? And have a rational discussion about the relative importance of liturgical revisions, which to my mind are very much discussions about the orientation of sun-loungers on the White Star Line's top new boat for 1912?
I think the Church should reinstate the ancient and PUBLIC discipline of penitence for all christians and those impious priests in particular, and also, introduce some canon that automatically deprives them of all clerical privileges. What I was also saying was that it was the same clerical culture of opacity of procedures and cover that enabled both the concoction and imposition of doubtful liturgical standards - for doubtful they are from a doctrinal point of view - and the illegal protection of foul priests.
Are you serious, or merely taking the piss?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Yeah, but this was from the context of AO arguing that the liturgical reformers should be anathematised. My point is that their sins, such as they are (and I've yet to see conclusive reasons for AO's, or anyone else's, condemnation of them other than "I don't like it" and some unsubstantiated waffle about "changing the teaching of the church") are very minor compared with other much, much bigger fish the church has to fry.

And people outside the church can see this, and find this bickering about liturgy, inasmuch as they're aware of it, as rather silly.

As do I.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, there is certainly a link between the two. If one cannot be faithful in the "little" things then how can they be faithful in the "big" things? Abuse leads to abuse.

Lex orandi lex credendi.

And this is bonkers. Catholic priests fuck choirboys because their liturgy isn't up to snuff. Yeah, of course.

[Roll Eyes]

Presumably you must think my priest is in serious danger of being a serial killer, given the innovations and variations we use.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, there is certainly a link between the two. If one cannot be faithful in the "little" things then how can they be faithful in the "big" things? Abuse leads to abuse.

Lex orandi lex credendi.

And this is bonkers. Catholic priests fuck choirboys because their liturgy isn't up to snuff. Yeah, of course.

[Roll Eyes]

Presumably you must think my priest is in serious danger of being a serial killer, given the innovations and variations we use.

Is this intentional or what? Nowhere have I established a causal relation between the one and the other! My whole point is that abuses, whatever their nature and their degree of are enabled because of certain aspects of clericalism, which I named as opacity of/in procedures and a culture of cover-up. They are correlated insofar as they depend on the same trends of clericalism. In one case the honour of the Creator is abused, while in the other, it is both that of the creature, and of the Creator, in whose image, the creature was made. Of course, there's a correlation for those who understand!
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
Given that all of us reflect different disciplines and expectations about how liturgical fidelity is rated amongst our moral/ethical/spiritual obligations, this thread has enough potential for mutual misunderstanding anyway.

So I wonder whether discussions about how far adherence to liturgical order may reflect or have an impact on wider moral and ethical questions really belongs in Ecclesiantics.

Personally I find the term "Liturgical War" somewhat disturbing, as it indicates a disposition, and a state of affairs within the Church which is far from ideal. It is further complicated by the fact that our different traditions bring different criteria to orthodoxy within worship which, if we do not recognise them, are liable to make this discussion much more difficult (and possibly ill-tempered) than it need be.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.

Indeed.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.

Yes. It demonstrates that we can spot risible bullshit when we see it.
 
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
There are strange things afoot in many places!

I am a transitional deacon in the dear old CofE, expecting to be ordained priest in the relatively near future, D.V.
In a booklet recently handed to me by the diocesan training team, on presidency at the Eucharist, the learned writer suggested in so many words that we can 'write our own Eucharistic Prayer' if we like.


Ae you sure that they didn't mean you can write your own extended preface for use with particular Eucharistic prayers which is perfectly legitimate and endorsed by Common Worship ?
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Fellow brethren of the Liturgical War, if I may use such an expression, behold how liberals vociferously react when the merest shadow of a relationship is established between liturgical and moral perversion is established. This speaks volumes.

Yes. It demonstrates that we can spot risible bullshit when we see it.
No, Sir, it simply means that liberals don't and won't engage intellectually in debates. They just revel in name-calling, profanity and vulgarity. This is the last time I have anything to do with you on this forum. You have used unbecoming (let alone charitable) language twice, and demonstrated your utter lack of interest in a proper confrontation of ideas. Godspeed.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I don't know about you, Gottschalk, but Ad Orientem gives every impression that he regards as a dangerous liberal any priest who accepts any tiny variation from the pre-Tridentine liturgy (or maybe even, since his 'conversion', from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Since that would even include such conservatives as JP2 and even Benedict XVI, it is indeed risible bullshit.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know about you, Gottschalk, but Ad Orientem gives every impression that he regards as a dangerous liberal any priest who accepts any tiny variation from the pre-Tridentine liturgy (or maybe even, since his 'conversion', from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Since that would even include such conservatives as JP2 and even Benedict XVI, it is indeed risible bullshit.

Of course, intention is more important than rubric. Intention informs how rubrics and actions are interpreted and enacted.

Being "conservative" does not preclude one from being terribly insensitive to liturgy, et a contrario: JP2 is an example, to whom, B16 is, to some extent, a counter-example.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know about you, Gottschalk, but Ad Orientem gives every impression that he regards as a dangerous liberal any priest who accepts any tiny variation from the pre-Tridentine liturgy (or maybe even, since his 'conversion', from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom). Since that would even include such conservatives as JP2 and even Benedict XVI, it is indeed risible bullshit.

Depends what you mean by "tiny variation", dunnit. I mean, adding prayers and feasts locally that have begun as pious devotions among the faithful with the authorisation of the bishop is fine because is how the liturgy has always grown, or the occassional ommission because something is simply unable to be done. What is dangerous and reprehensible is liturgy by committee or by the whim of a superbishop with a total disregard for the tradition, slash and burn. Such change in the prayer of the Church can only mean one thing, that the faith of the Church has changed. The smoke of Satan, and all that.

[ 19. July 2013, 17:12: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Not every change to the liturgy via a committee or a bishop represents a change to the faith. Indeed, surely a minority of such liturgical tinkerings can be shown unequivocally to even suggest a change to the doctrine of the Church. Language isn't so unambiguous as that, nor are manual acts and other gestures. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
@Angloid

Honestly, I situate myself beyond the conservative/liberal divide. I simply dont care about JP2, B16 - what this Pope or that Bishop or this Hierarch has to say about politics and all that. Sometimes a gem may be found in an encyclical or some letter I have no interest in all that. Augustine left us with a nice dichotomy of the two cities. What is important, IMO, is the right worship of God through honest christian living and the Liturgy. I think the Non-Jurors and the Scottish Episcopalians somehow realised this when the Establishment abandoned them and persecuted them - hence, not bound by the civil power to a minimalist interpretation of the liturgy, they dug from the treasury of christian tradition to enhance their praxis.

So for me it is highly ominous that it is the civil power, encouraged by clerics and prelates, that has enabled and will enable such reforms in church discipline and social mores that I cannot in good conscience accept.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Gottschalk

It sounds to me as if you are reifying the text. This Protestant wants to warn you that the liturgy is not God and never will be.

I value liturgy, the extempore prayer can be reified as much as any set text. However a helpful distance has to be kept between the technology of worship and that which is worshipped.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
Jengie,

That's indeed a real danger: the reification of the text. But the Liturgy is not merely a text: it is where we encounter the Word, and then the Word made Flesh. In it we have at once the Word as Sacrament, Sacrifice and Person. One of the really wonderful aspects of the Roman Rite ( I mean the classical, pre-1970) and which continues in the BCP tradition, is how much the prayer of the Church is addressed to God the Father through the Mediation of Christ. In the Collects, Secrets, in the Canon. See, for example, the secret for this coming Sunday, IXth after Pentecost/Xth after Trinity.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Well it is only one place you do that. God is not limited to the act of worship. We in the words of C.S. Lewis put wood on one altar only for fire to fall on another.

Getting it right with liturgy can turn us into Pharisees. That is we adopt their belief that salvation will happen only when we fulfil the minutiae of the ritual. This is not a complaint against high church, humans are ritual desiring creatures also there are plenty of low church Pharisees of this ilk around as well who start worrying if you use a formal prayer in worship.

Jengie
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
For crying out loud: how is the Eucharistic liturgy provided by 1662 a fit-for-purpose vehicle of the Eucharistic Sacrifice? 1549 was fine, apart from its longsomeness. 1552 and beyond (speaking strictly of the CofE books here)are all terribly defective theologically and were not meant to convey the Church's historic pre-Reformation understanding of the Mass. I've no doubt that Our Lord graces the Altar with his sacramental presence when one of these theologically defective liturgies is used, but it's certainly in spite of - not because of - what the language and order of these liturgical texts present.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Now where the hell the did I park the muck spreader. I thik we need to spread this pile of shit before it stinks us out.

Firstly, the liturgical conservatives have a point in that most of the revisions of the 1960s and 70s were done on the basis of half-completed and imperfect scholariship.

Secondly, they have created a tradition of perpetual revision in certain churches, ehough not in the RCC, which is unsettling and creates the impression that core doctrine and traditions are being revised.

Thirdly, it is total bogus to blame the Vatican II liturgy for the child abuse scandal. It is making the wrong causal link.

Fourthly, that said (and this, sadly, is strictly a fruit of experience thing) there does seem to be a link between indiscipline in one area of one's priesthood and indiscipline in others. To take a pessimistic view, the priest who screws around with the liturgy contrary to the rules issued by the competant authority (the caveat is important), may well consider himself as knowing better than the rules in other areas of his life. Usually this personal assumption of exceptionalism usually does not lead to anything serious or criminal. However, it seem that blowing off the liturgical or moral rules of the Church and screwing around with his expenses and/or another man's wife seem to be linked rather more often than one would think. I am not saying that he WILL, but regarding oneself as being above the rules in one area of life seems to make it easier to make exceptions for oneself in others. However, it is only an anecdotal link - so far.

PD
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My two-happorth ...

No, some revisions and tinkering with liturgy isn't tantamount to a root and branch alteration of the faith. Nor is it any causal effect for priests buggering choir boys. I imagine that there have been liturgically kosher priests who have also buggered choirboys.

By that argument then all liturgical innovators of whatever stripe - including non-conformists, would be putting their willies where they didn't ought to go.

However ...

Whereas I think that it is ludicrous to assume that Karl Liberal Backslider's priest/minister is some kind of serial killer given whatever innovations he's making to the satisfaction of Karl and his other acolytes, my guess would nevertheless be that the man is a twat.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My two-happorth ...

No, some revisions and tinkering with liturgy isn't tantamount to a root and branch alteration of the faith. Nor is it any causal effect for priests buggering choir boys. I imagine that there have been liturgically kosher priests who have also buggered choirboys.

By that argument then all liturgical innovators of whatever stripe - including non-conformists, would be putting their willies where they didn't ought to go.

However ...

Whereas I think that it is ludicrous to assume that Karl Liberal Backslider's priest/minister is some kind of serial killer given whatever innovations he's making to the satisfaction of Karl and his other acolytes, my guess would nevertheless be that the man is a twat.

Right on all points, though I would still say that indiscipline in one area makes indiscipline more likely in others.

It strikes me that in additional to KLB's minister being a twat, there is also the possibility that he is just being innovative within the rules. Every now and again some churchwarden phones me up - always on my day off funnily enough - and complains that 'Farver is doing X.' 9 times out of 10 it is simply the case that there is (a) no rule against it, (b) it is just within the rules provided you squint a bit, or more usually (c) the churchwarden has never seen it before.

The 1 in 10 gets a reminder as to what the guidelines are, and hopefully that clear it up, as I really do not want to have to discipline someone for a minor liturgical irregularity.

PD

[ 19. July 2013, 19:43: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I suspect that God in all honest is looking at the heart of the worshippers more than the ritual. In that ritual prepares the heart and there is that which reminds us of the faith it is good and decent thing.

When its "correct" performance comes before the right relatedness with our fellow Christian (after all the one instruction for coming to worship our Lord left was that we should be at peace with our fellow Christian), I tend to think we may be missing something. It also turns the priest into a magician and God into a slot machine.

Jengie
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Churches have correct ways of doing things to preserve the basic integrity of a sacrament, and became most folks cannot handle freaking chaos. Most of us need a safe environment to pray something less self-centred and more constructive than 'Dear Lord, get me outta here! Amen.'

PD
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
For crying out loud: how is the Eucharistic liturgy provided by 1662 a fit-for-purpose vehicle of the Eucharistic Sacrifice? 1549 was fine, apart from its longsomeness. 1552 and beyond (speaking strictly of the CofE books here)are all terribly defective theologically and were not meant to convey the Church's historic pre-Reformation understanding of the Mass. I've no doubt that Our Lord graces the Altar with his sacramental presence when one of these theologically defective liturgies is used, but it's certainly in spite of - not because of - what the language and order of these liturgical texts present.

See what I wrote about Cosin, the Non-Jurors, and the Scottish divines.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Of course the liturgy should be served in the right spirit. I don't think anyone would deny that. And it is the Holy Spirit which makes these things "valid". Does this then mean that the content of the rite is unimportant or that the right spirit and adherence to the liturgical tradition are somehow mutually exclusive? Of course not. But again, much of this depends upon how one views the prayer of the Church, As I said earlier, I would view the ancient liturgies of the Church as being essentially equal to scripture, as something approved by the Holy Spirit through constant use, something which to meddle with is akin to meddling with the sacred scriptures. When something is holy and venerable it is so for all generations.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's probably both/and not either/or, Jengie.

It's not as if your tradition holds loosely to doing things 'decently and in order' and by what it considers to be correct formularies. Far from it.

Sure, there's probably less anally-retentive obsession with some of the niceties and nuances, but the Reformed approach, in its various forms, is far from a free for-all or innovation for innovation's sake or because someone somewhere thinks it would be 'cool' to tweak this, that or the other aspect.

I suppose I'm channelling my recently acquired Anglo-Catholic spiritual-director who believes that with God most things are both/and rather than either/or.

So in the instance of Karl's vicar the guy is probably both a twat and a sincere and well-meaning guy at one and the same time.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ad Orientem, I can see what you're saying, but how do you deal with aspects that aren't practiced any more? I've always been puzzled, for instance, why the Orthodox include the bit about 'the doors! the doors!' and 'Depart ye catechumens ... let all catechumens depart ...' etc when:

1) Nobody locks the doors.
2) No catechumens or visitors leave the service at that point.

Now, I can understand there being some kind of memorial/reminder/throw-back to times when the Church tended to meet in secret (behind locked doors) or when catechumens didn't attend the eucharistic part of the service until they'd been fully catechised and baptised/chrismated.

But this doesn't happen any more. Nobody seriously expects the catechumens to go home at that point.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Yes, no doubt such parts seem anachronistic.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


So in the instance of Karl's vicar the guy is probably both a twat and a sincere and well-meaning guy at one and the same time.

[Overused]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Well, fortunately Angloid, Gam, PD et al., I very much doubt he cares on your viess on his twattishness. I'm not sure it's to my credit if I care what you think of him based on your bugger all knowledge either.

We should never have subsumed Small Fire into this section.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I thought my post was fair-minded, Karl.

If the man is a twat - and I see no reason for assuming he isn't - then, as I pointed out in my subsequent post he can be a twat and a good-egg at one and the same time.

It's a bit like the Lutheran thing about 'simul justus et peccator' - simultaneously justified and a sinner.

He's got to be a twat because you're going to his church. He's got to be a good-egg because he's clearly helping you.

Both aspects are true at one and the same time.

[Razz]

'Simul twattus et good-geezer'.

I don't see what your problem is with that, either on theological, Small Fire or liturgical grounds.

Seems self-evident to me.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You're going to have to explain what "He's got to be a twat because you're going to his church" is meant to mean in a non -hellish context because it currently eludes me.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I was teasing, of course ... and yes, it was too Hellish for Ecclesiantics so I withdraw the remark.

It would be probably have been better to say:

'He's almost certainly a twat because all ministers/clergy are twats just like everybody else. He'll be a twat in the way he does things just as the ministers/clergy in the churches you choose not to attend will be twats in the way they do their things. You have simply chosen one form of twattery rather than another. His twattery suits you better than that of the others.'

Is that better?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, no doubt such parts seem anachronistic.

Yes, or in the Western Rite the whole fiddly dance of the subdeacon in humeral veil with first the veiled chalice and patin, and then holding the patin in the folds of the humeral veil throughout the canon. This all relates to the primitive and perhaps patristic Church practice of deacons taking a particle of consecrated bread from the bishop's Eucharist out to the suburban congregations where presbyters were celebrating the Eucharist, in order to show the unity of these celebrations with the bishop's Eucharist. But this paten dance has no practical purpose anymore -- it's just a remnant that hardly anyone ever understands now. What's the point, other than to be both twee and fiddly?
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, no doubt such parts seem anachronistic.

Yes, or in the Western Rite the whole fiddly dance of the subdeacon in humeral veil with first the veiled chalice and patin, and then holding the patin in the folds of the humeral veil throughout the canon. This all relates to the primitive and perhaps patristic Church practice of deacons taking a particle of consecrated bread from the bishop's Eucharist out to the suburban congregations where presbyters were celebrating the Eucharist, in order to show the unity of these celebrations with the bishop's Eucharist. But this paten dance has no practical purpose anymore -- it's just a remnant that hardly anyone ever understands now. What's the point, other than to be both twee and fiddly?
What is it to you what the Subdeacon doeth at Mass? Good if it serves no practical purpose! The myth that everything done in the Primitive Church was practical is hard to die. If you dont like the Roman Mass and its ceremonies, what retains you from partaking of rolls and grape juice at the nearest conventicle?

Symbolism is lost on this uneducated generation.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
This thread is suffering from a lack of Pratchett. Both Small Gods and Pyramids come to mind.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Blimey, I've been offline for just over 24 hours and this thread has exploded! I was talking with someone today about how I wish Christians could 'disagree with grace' more often, rather than throwing abuse and accusations of bad faith at one another over theological disputes. Seems appropriate for this thread...
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ad Orientem, I can see what you're saying, but how do you deal with aspects that aren't practiced any more? I've always been puzzled, for instance, why the Orthodox include the bit about 'the doors! the doors!' and 'Depart ye catechumens ... let all catechumens depart ...' etc when:

1) Nobody locks the doors.
2) No catechumens or visitors leave the service at that point.

Now, I can understand there being some kind of memorial/reminder/throw-back to times when the Church tended to meet in secret (behind locked doors) or when catechumens didn't attend the eucharistic part of the service until they'd been fully catechised and baptised/chrismated.

But this doesn't happen any more. Nobody seriously expects the catechumens to go home at that point.

Ah this is a lovely example of how out-of-date ritual can be an incredible teaching tool, bringing us to an understanding of the importance of belief to early Xns, and the risks they were prepared to take, and to communicate their strength of purpose to us. Roman emperors may not have been a problem for the past sixteen centuries, but persecution is still a reality for many Xns and these now-perhaps-irrelevant rituals can bring us into sympathy with them.

People mutter about and against maniples, but these little bits of cloth remind us of the serving role of the clergy, that their diaconal role was to help clean up the mess of the daily life of the wretched. Every reminder helps, and a sensible pastor will not leave it at the power-point-presentation, but will use these fiddly little things to teach.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, no doubt such parts seem anachronistic.

Yes, or in the Western Rite the whole fiddly dance of the subdeacon in humeral veil with first the veiled chalice and patin, and then holding the patin in the folds of the humeral veil throughout the canon. This all relates to the primitive and perhaps patristic Church practice of deacons taking a particle of consecrated bread from the bishop's Eucharist out to the suburban congregations where presbyters were celebrating the Eucharist, in order to show the unity of these celebrations with the bishop's Eucharist. But this paten dance has no practical purpose anymore -- it's just a remnant that hardly anyone ever understands now. What's the point, other than to be both twee and fiddly?
What is it to you what the Subdeacon doeth at Mass? Good if it serves no practical purpose! The myth that everything done in the Primitive Church was practical is hard to die. If you dont like the Roman Mass and its ceremonies, what retains you from partaking of rolls and grape juice at the nearest conventicle?

Symbolism is lost on this uneducated generation.

Dunno about you, dude, but I hold a PhD, have a decent knowledge of liturgics, am unintersted in taking part in the worship of fanatical conventicles with all their squalid sluttery, and serve weekly or more often at Masses using the English Missal ( I'm also a survivor of American Missal and A-C gussied up CW solemn liturgies), so please do hold your peace and refrain from making assumptions.
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, no doubt such parts seem anachronistic.

Yes, or in the Western Rite the whole fiddly dance of the subdeacon in humeral veil with first the veiled chalice and patin, and then holding the patin in the folds of the humeral veil throughout the canon. This all relates to the primitive and perhaps patristic Church practice of deacons taking a particle of consecrated bread from the bishop's Eucharist out to the suburban congregations where presbyters were celebrating the Eucharist, in order to show the unity of these celebrations with the bishop's Eucharist. But this paten dance has no practical purpose anymore -- it's just a remnant that hardly anyone ever understands now. What's the point, other than to be both twee and fiddly?
What is it to you what the Subdeacon doeth at Mass? Good if it serves no practical purpose! The myth that everything done in the Primitive Church was practical is hard to die. If you dont like the Roman Mass and its ceremonies, what retains you from partaking of rolls and grape juice at the nearest conventicle?

Symbolism is lost on this uneducated generation.

Dunno about you, dude, but I hold a PhD, have a decent knowledge of liturgics, am unintersted in taking part in the worship of fanatical conventicles with all their squalid sluttery, and serve weekly or more often at Masses using the English Missal ( I'm also a survivor of American Missal and A-C gussied up CW solemn liturgies), so please do hold your peace and refrain from making assumptions.
In the matter of the Faith and praxis, I will never hold my peace. People may think these are adiaphora: I, following authorities, don't. I think the pretended abolition of the subdiaconate by Paul VI is a sorry affair. I believe that each clerical order is important in the liturgical and ethical life of the Church. Why, one only has to look into St Dionysius, and to a lesser extent Paschasius Radbertus, Sicardus, and a host of ancient authorities.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
If you dont like the Roman Mass and its ceremonies, what retains you from partaking of rolls and grape juice at the nearest conventicle?

For those, like me, who hadn't heard the word 'conventicle' before: Wikipedia article

It seems they were / are unofficial, informal gatherings of lay people - I find it interesting and rather sad that they were banned in England by various Acts of Parliament in the 16th and 17th centuries. Banning Christians from gathering in groups together unless under the authority of an ordained person; what on earth was that about??
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Gamaliel

I have been very careful to say I am not anti-liturgy all the way through. Please read. The free for all can be as much reified as any liturgy can.

The question is more fundamental than that, the question is what is important to God. Oddly to me it seems God cares more about good relatedness than about the form of worship. If the form supports that it is good, when getting the form right becomes more important than that then it is dangerous because we have lost what is important and substituted something else instead. To reference C.S. Lewis again it is not what is small that are the greatest dangers of being idols but what are great and contain goodness in them, for we mistake their goodness for that which alone can be found in God of which it is only a reflection.

Now just to give you an example of the reifying of free liturgy that can easily be traced. Catherine Marshall in "A Man Called Peter" talks of her husbands difficulty when asked to be chaplain, I think to the US Senate. It required him to submit his prayers a week before hand. This was against his tradition practices which favoured extempore as being open to the Holy Spirit. Of course he found the Holy Spirit was able to work a week in advance but that was not the way his tradition saw it.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Jengie Jon

Where did I accuse you of being anti-liturgy? Please read.

I probably didn't express myself very well, but I think what I was trying to say was closer to your position here than might have been apparent from what I actually ended up writing ... if that makes sense.

[Biased]

Peace.

[Votive]

At South Coast Kevin ... the issue with 16th/17th 'conventicles' is a complex one. It wasn't simply that these people were gathering without formally appointed clergy. They were often seen - rightly or wrongly - as being 'seditious'.

I've got a lot of time for the radical dissenters of the 17th century - we enjoy certain freedoms today largely because of their - sometimes quite eccentric - witness.

But I can well understand why the authorities of the time saw them as a threat to the social and political order. Even someone like Bunyan, an all-round good egg as far as I'm concerned - but if you read some of his writings closely he begins to sound like a Fifth Monarchist (a radical and quite violent movement that sought to establish the Kingdom of God by force) and almost Taliban-ish at times.

Jengie Jon would be good on all this - the Great Ejection and the various Acts of Uniformity and so on.

Similarly with the 17th century Scottish Covenanters, I have some sympathy with them. But bloody hell, I wouldn't have wanted to be involved with any of their churches ... [Eek!]

Then there are the terrorist acts and assassinations that some of these characters used to get up to. Sure, I recognise that it was some pretty extreme Covenanters who assassinated Archbishop Sharp outside St Andrews in 1679 and that Sharp himself was a pretty nasty piece of work by all accounts, but you can certainly understand the viewpoint of the authorities when enormities like that took place against a background of conventicles and sectarian religion.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:

In the matter of the Faith and praxis, I will never hold my peace. People may think these are adiaphora: I, following authorities, don't. I think the pretended abolition of the subdiaconate by Paul VI is a sorry affair. I believe that each clerical order is important in the liturgical and ethical life of the Church. Why, one only has to look into St Dionysius, and to a lesser extent Paschasius Radbertus, Sicardus, and a host of ancient authorities.

Dude, do you realise how shrill - indeed, near hysterical - that sounds?

{fixed code]

[ 21. July 2013, 01:17: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
It is always handy to have a hobby - such as model railways, single malt whisky, or in extreme cases, clay pigeon shooting - for those moments when one gets wound a little too tightly. It helps one to retain a sense of proportion.

Personally I have never been able to discern the reason for Paul VI abolishing the subdiaconate. It seemed pointless then, and more so now. We have basically had to recreate it in our jurisdiction to deal with some of the pastoral concerns that we have. One new function that we added to the SD's list is administering the chalice at the Eucharist. It was either that or EEMs, and we did not want to go the EEM route. Most of our clergy train part-time, so the minor orders idea gives them the old carrot as they work their way through Reader, and "Subdeacon" to Deacon, and eventually to priest. It is a lot less intimidating to say to a chap, at the end of year one you will be commissioned as a reader, than to say in three years time you will be ordained deacon.

My updraggings are very much in the moderate Anglo-Catholic tradition within the Church of England, so I have my own particular range of hills I seem to have a desire to die on. On the other hand, being middle aged and cynical, rather than young and idealistic, so I get myself into a lot fewer fights these days.

PD

[ 20. July 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:

In the matter of the Faith and praxis, I will never hold my peace. People may think these are adiaphora: I, following authorities, don't. I think the pretended abolition of the subdiaconate by Paul VI is a sorry affair. I believe that each clerical order is important in the liturgical and ethical life of the Church. Why, one only has to look into St Dionysius, and to a lesser extent Paschasius Radbertus, Sicardus, and a host of ancient authorities.

Dude, do you realise how shrill - indeed, near hysterical - that sounds?
Hahaha is that all your PhD allows you to come up with?

[ 21. July 2013, 01:19: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
@PD

Its also very nice to grab a couple of pints every now and then - especially in this weather. Yesterday I was bedridden - hence my presence on the forum. Otherwise plodding through a mass of books for a dangerously looming deadline.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@PD

Its also very nice to grab a couple of pints every now and then - especially in this weather. Yesterday I was bedridden - hence my presence on the forum. Otherwise plodding through a mass of books for a dangerously looming deadline.

But don't you go nowhere because I've loved all your posts, cos you say it much better than I do.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Good luck with the deadlines.

I was a lousy student in the sense that I am one of those who loves the sound that deadlines make as they whizz by - thank for that Douglas Adams! However it was "parakat" in the arts faculty that a 9am Monday deadline meant, whenever the lecturer got in on Monday or Tuesday. This led to a few all-nighters, usually on Sunday nights after playing a limited over match, or getting slightly plastered after rugger or hockey. I guess things are less relaxed these days, but those alcohol and coffee fired all-nighters are a happy memory!

This morning we had a gentle yodel through the Venite; got through the Benedictus es with gusto; and sounded slightly lost in the Benedictus as we navigated out way through the monthly Frankenmass, and did our bit to keep the sung office alive, sort of!

PD

[ 22. July 2013, 03:25: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Good luck with the deadlines.

I was a lousy student in the sense that I am one of those who loves the sound that deadlines make as they whizz by - thank for that Douglas Adams! However it was "parakat" in the arts faculty that a 9am Monday deadline meant, whenever the lecturer got in on Monday or Tuesday. This led to a few all-nighters, usually on Sunday nights after playing a limited over match, or getting slightly plastered after rugger or hockey. I guess things are less relaxed these days, but those alcohol and coffee fired all-nighters are a happy memory!

This morning we had a gentle yodel through the Venite; got through the Benedictus es with gusto; and sounded slightly lost in the Benedictus as we navigated out way through the monthly Frankenmass, and did our bit to keep the sung office alive, sort of!

PD

Totally sympathise with that. Have you been following the Ashes? The antipodes are being mildly thrashed [Snigger] . Hope England keeps up.

Ah, Frankenmass - an ugly term indeed - but I like it, I mean Mattins as Antecommunion. I take it is popular with your folk. Do you use the Te Deum then? I was thinking of a simple setting by Stanford, but can't remember which one.

[ 22. July 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
We tend to alternate the Benedictus es with the Te Deum unless MP as ante-communion occurs twice in Eastertide, or something of that nature. The usual setting of the Te Deum in our place is "Set A" from the 1940 Hymnal of the PECUSA which is Monk/Croft.

The tradition here was Low side of Central in British terms. 8.00am Communion (Low Mass) was followed by 10.00am Sung Communion alternating with Morning Prayer. This remained the case until about 1990 when the then rector then knocked MP back to 'whenever the rector is away.' He seemed to be one of those 'one change a year' guys as he introduced mass vestments in 1992; Office lights in 1993; and perpetual reservation of the MBS in 1994; a holy font by the door in 1995; and started introducing bits and bobs from the Missal in 1996/7 just before his retirement. The next guy was a full on Missal Mass, rammed it down everyone's throats, and there was an explosion that split the parish.

When I came here in 2002 the general feeling was that they would like MP back in the schedule. Initially, it was said before the Low Mass, and then there was a request for Sung MP occasionally. At that point I was in the position of either:

(a) saying no
(b) putting up with no Eucharist at the main service on fifth Sundays.
(c) using MP as the ante-communion once a month.

I decided (c) was the line of least resistence. We do not have a worship committee so things tend to get left to the Rector's commonsense, if he has any. I do put out feelers though to see if there is anything folks would like to see added to the schedule or changed. It was also a useful barginning chip when I introduced incense a year or so later.

The only time I get much static about the way we do things is when someone comes in from outside and does not have the necessary humility to sit back for six months to see if the parish tradition works.

PD
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
We tend to alternate the Benedictus es with the Te Deum unless MP as ante-communion occurs twice in Eastertide, or something of that nature. The usual setting of the Te Deum in our place is "Set A" from the 1940 Hymnal of the PECUSA which is Monk/Croft.

The tradition here was Low side of Central in British terms. 8.00am Communion (Low Mass) was followed by 10.00am Sung Communion alternating with Morning Prayer. This remained the case until about 1990 when the then rector then knocked MP back to 'whenever the rector is away.' He seemed to be one of those 'one change a year' guys as he introduced mass vestments in 1992; Office lights in 1993; and perpetual reservation of the MBS in 1994; a holy font by the door in 1995; and started introducing bits and bobs from the Missal in 1996/7 just before his retirement. The next guy was a full on Missal Mass, rammed it down everyone's throats, and there was an explosion that split the parish.

When I came here in 2002 the general feeling was that they would like MP back in the schedule. Initially, it was said before the Low Mass, and then there was a request for Sung MP occasionally. At that point I was in the position of either:

(a) saying no
(b) putting up with no Eucharist at the main service on fifth Sundays.
(c) using MP as the ante-communion once a month.

I decided (c) was the line of least resistence. We do not have a worship committee so things tend to get left to the Rector's commonsense, if he has any. I do put out feelers though to see if there is anything folks would like to see added to the schedule or changed. It was also a useful barginning chip when I introduced incense a year or so later.

The only time I get much static about the way we do things is when someone comes in from outside and does not have the necessary humility to sit back for six months to see if the parish tradition works.

PD

One thing from your post I think worth noting is that despite the general climate of liturgical havoc or apathy raging in the last couple of decades, your community was trying to find its ways through traditional liturgies and forms.

The Anglican choral tradition is so rich and beautiful - Monk, Croft, Purcell, Tallis, Wesley, Stanford, and so forth. One wishes it were more available beyond the cathedrals, colleges and big churches.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
We have monthly full choral matins: setting of at least one of the canticles, proper psalm, anthem, sung responses, etc, etc

Attendance is on a par with parish communion - sometimes even exceeds it.

Settings range from simple Morley to Mathias, via Stanford, Wood and Britten.

Lovely!
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
@L'organist

I'm sure it must be lovely. [Smile] I wish I had that fare more regularly.

I don't understand why some churches will do the office traditionally, but when it comes to Holy Communion, then all Hell, forgive the expression, breaks loose.

Isn't it simple - we've got the straight BCP, the Dearmer, the Fortescue ceremony-wise for those thus inclined? How can one find satisfaction in those anglicanised versions of the Novus Ordo? There is an interesting Communion Service on the website of St Michael in Cornhill - rearranged BCP communion. Does anyone know if they still follow this order?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Percy Dearmer's 'The Parson's Handbook' would be on the list of 'books that changed my life' for me. I came across a copy when I was at a day retreat at Edward King House, Lincoln, when I was about 17. The retreat was no great shakes, so I was playing hookie in the library after lunch, and started reading Dearmer - a name alread familiar to me from the school hymnbook - Songs of Praise. Thank God, my school was still trying to civilize a no longer existant empire!

What a revelation! A beautiful ordered ceremonial, fully in accord with the BCP and soaked in the mediaeval. I was hooked. When the retreat was over I repaired to SPCK around the corner on the top of Steep Hill, found a copy in the secondhand section for a few quid, and went home a happy PD.

I have to confess that I have spent most of the last ten years trying to turn my MOTR American parish into a Dearmerish sort of a place. We are only halfway there even now, but the ceremonial at the Eucharist is recognizably Dearmer, and we do our best to follow the BCP. I am a part time parish priest, but I am careful to schedule the Office and the Eucharist as much as I can - not just on Sundays! Our basic pattern is Sundays, Wednesdays, and major Holydays for the Eucharist, and before the Eucharist and on the above plus any day I am in the office for Matins and/or Evensong.

One thing I think it is important to do is pray for the membership of the parish. I pray for 2/3 of folks each day of the month mentioning them before the Prayer for all sorts and conditions. I think the Daily Office offers a time for intercession, and I am quite happy with folks sharing their prayer needs in the appropriate place at Matins or Evensong.

I do wish I could get them chanting the office to plainsong on weekdays, but perhaps that will come in the Lord's time and not mine! Maybe, they just prefer to say not sing. As a priest one just has to keep heart, eyes and eas open, and try to perceive the need.

Another idea I need to play with at some point is that of reviving West Gallery Music as part of the liturgy. My organist is big on Baroque music, and likes slightly off the beaten track stuff, and plays a lot of good second rate stuff by English and American composers of the 1700s. We have even had Turlough O'Carolan arrange for keyboard played on the organ as the voluntary after Church of a Sunday. It went over well, I can assure you.

I would like to be a bit more "Volkskirche" in the way we do things, but I have to deal with the ghost of Victorian "properness." It would be nice to do a 'Jane Austen Era' service once in a while, and I would love it if the back pew was once again the singers pew, and we had a little instrumental music in church. Just spare me the guitars and drum kits - that's getting boring fellas!

PD
(who knows how to dance Grimstock!)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... I do wish I could get them chanting the office to plainsong on weekdays, but perhaps that will come in the Lord's time and not mine! Maybe, they just prefer to say not sing. As a priest one just has to keep heart, eyes and eas open, and try to perceive the need.

Another idea I need to play with at some point is that of reviving West Gallery Music as part of the liturgy. My organist is big on Baroque music, and likes slightly off the beaten track stuff, and plays a lot of good second rate stuff by English and American composers of the 1700s. We have even had Turlough O'Carolan arrange for keyboard played on the organ as the voluntary after Church of a Sunday. It went over well, I can assure you.

I would like to be a bit more "Volkskirche" in the way we do things, but I have to deal with the ghost of Victorian "properness." It would be nice to do a 'Jane Austen Era' service once in a while, and I would love it if the back pew was once again the singers pew, and we had a little instrumental music in church. Just spare me the guitars and drum kits - that's getting boring fellas!

Rather than plainsong, why not revert to singing your psalms in metre. Rollo Wood's Praise and Glory has some lively settings.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rather than plainsong, why not revert to singing your psalms in metre. Rollo Wood's Praise and Glory has some lively settings.

Blech. Give me Coverdale any day, and the adapted Sarum tones from Briggs & Frere!
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Rather than plainsong, why not revert to singing your psalms in metre. Rollo Wood's Praise and Glory has some lively settings.

Blech. Give me Coverdale any day, and the adapted Sarum tones from Briggs & Frere!
Am not a great fan of metrical psalms and paraphrases either - though I see their value. I'm ok for plainsong if it is done well, and the congregation is motivated. And hymns, or course - but the problem with many hymn tunes is their romantic/secular character.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
As far as I have been able to work out, the metrical psalms were not usually used as a substitute for the 'saying psalms.' For much of the 18th century the liturgy was basically a duet of Parson and Clerk with the laity only joining in a few places. The congregational response was largely provided by the metrical Psalms.

High Churchmen remained Psalms only quite late. The original hymnbook in my home parish c. 1836 was snappily entitled 'The New Version of the Psalms in Metre, with a selection of Hymns for the Church seasons.' It basically consisted of Tate and Brady and a selection of about 70 hymns. It was replaced by Hymns Ancient and Modern about 1865. Chad Varah maintained that his Dad -Vicar 1911-45 - used the English Hymnal, and we went to HA&MR c.1952. The current hymnal is Common Praise. The first really big selling hymnbook in the Church of England was Bickersteth's 'Hymnal Companion to the BCP' which was published in 1856.

PD
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
.... - but the problem with many hymn tunes is their romantic/secular character.

Like "the dove on the far-off terebinths"?
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I regret that the duties of my real life work have prevented me from getting to this thread until now. There have been a number of comments which are way outside the realm of acceptable comment in Ecclesiantics. I am particularly looking at Gottschalk but there are others who are not guiltless. I advise you all to remind yourselves of the 10 Commandments and of the guidelines of this board. Personal attacks are contrary to Commandment 3 and will not be tolerated.

seasick, Eccles host

[ 24. July 2013, 19:12: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have to confess that I have spent most of the last ten years trying to turn my MOTR American parish into a Dearmerish sort of a place.

Why? What was so wrong with the MOTR liturgy they had before you exerted ten years of effort into changing the way they worship?
 
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have to confess that I have spent most of the last ten years trying to turn my MOTR American parish into a Dearmerish sort of a place.

Why? What was so wrong with the MOTR liturgy they had before you exerted ten years of effort into changing the way they worship?
Well, YMMV, obviously, but I find it (using it for the giant amorphous mass of practices which could be considered MOTR) to be often apologetic, cack-handed and uninspiring, and more than usually lacking in reverence and an understanding of the liturgical dynamic.

Even Dearmerish British Museum Religion would be preferable. [Razz]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Clearly MOTR worship is not to your personal liking, and PD obviously finds Dearmerish worship to be very much his cup of tea. But it seems to me that spending the better part of a decade exerting efforts to change a parish's liturgy would be based on something more than personal preference. So I thought PD might explain what was wrong with the MOTR worship being practiced by his parish when he got there.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Clearly MOTR worship is not to your personal liking, and PD obviously finds Dearmerish worship to be very much his cup of tea. But it seems to me that spending the better part of a decade exerting efforts to change a parish's liturgy would be based on something more than personal preference.*snip*

While I would say that this be the case on a sane planet, RuthW, I have seen extraordinarily determined longterm efforts by a rector simply to suit his preference. I do not know PD or this parish situation, but I would not rule it out.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
My predecessors had tried to move the parish up the candle, and had got good natured tolerance which eventually tapered off into open rebellion when the American Missal was introduced. As sacking and a back tracking to somewhere around MOTR followed, but in the process a variety of liturgical minimalism set in. The services were either Masses or hymn sandwiches.

Basically, what they were doing had gotten very stale, so it was time to push on some doors and see which ones opened. I initially tried continuing what my immediate predecessor had done, whilst slowly removed the non-BCP material. That got as favourable response, as did reintroducing Morning Prayer, which had dropped out of the schedule.

There basically is not a huge difference between MOTR and British Museum Religion, so it was mainly a tidying up exercise. Certainly the old MOTR manual "The Middle Way" by Latta Griswold (Morehouse, 1928) is a bit Dearmerish, so that was the direction I took things. Moving to a new building helped, as the new space allowed the painless removal of a lot of altar clutter.

The main changes have actually been fairly periferal. The ablutions are taken at the end of Mass, not immediately after Communion. Genuflection has been replaced with bowing, etc..

The big changes are things like a proper Good Friday liturgy (which has been popular) and the restoration of some of the old ceremonies on Maundy Thursday. I think my biggest change was the elimination of 'Office Lights' hich occured when we moved from the old building to the new, and the introduction of incense on major festivals. No-one seems to have minded my liturgical changes, and for the most part, the folks seem to have a bit more ownership of the liturgy now that the dominating factor is doing it 'by-the-book' rather than 'parson's pleasure.'

It has reall been a bit of a sideline exercise all the way through. It terms of my attention and effort preparing sermons, dealing with the routine pastoral work, and navigating the week-in; weel out aggreviations of being a Rector have had far for of my attention. It started out as a case of something needing to be done, and between my background and training and the parishes preference it has ended up being the direction that has worked for us.

PD
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
for the most part, the folks seem to have a bit more ownership of the liturgy now that the dominating factor is doing it 'by-the-book' rather than 'parson's pleasure.'

PD

Forgive a chuckle. Parson's Pleasure is/was the name of a spot on the Cherwell reserved for nude bathing by members of the University...all men at the time it started, though it continued/continues for many decades after the admission of women.

Your phrasing conjured up the image of a nude PD, possibly wearing a stole, presiding at a north end....

Forgive.

John
 
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :
 
Come on, now! Now that Parson's Pleasure has been mentioned someone should regale us with the Bowra Anecdote. [Snigger]

[ 26. July 2013, 01:08: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
PD briefly mentions:
altar clutter

Can you elaborate for us?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
John, the tongue in cheek reference to a certain spot on the Cherwell was intentional. I thought it would give someone a checkle, but I did not quite expect such a lively imagination!

TSA, I am afraid I tend to regard the gradine, faux tabernacle, and the six gimcrack candlesticks, flower vases and IHS cross that they bore to be altar clutter. Especially when all that brassware usually comes at the expense of no proper frontal, just the liturgical miniskirt of a superfrontal. In a broader sense, it also includes the needles multiplication of prie dieu and other woodwork within the sanctuary. I have heard the effect described as 'being like Watts and Co's backroom.'

PD
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... I do wish I could get them chanting the office to plainsong on weekdays, but perhaps that will come in the Lord's time and not mine! Maybe, they just prefer to say not sing. As a priest one just has to keep heart, eyes and eas open, and try to perceive the need.

Another idea I need to play with at some point is that of reviving West Gallery Music as part of the liturgy. My organist is big on Baroque music, and likes slightly off the beaten track stuff, and plays a lot of good second rate stuff by English and American composers of the 1700s. We have even had Turlough O'Carolan arrange for keyboard played on the organ as the voluntary after Church of a Sunday. It went over well, I can assure you.

I would like to be a bit more "Volkskirche" in the way we do things, but I have to deal with the ghost of Victorian "properness." It would be nice to do a 'Jane Austen Era' service once in a while, and I would love it if the back pew was once again the singers pew, and we had a little instrumental music in church. Just spare me the guitars and drum kits - that's getting boring fellas!

Rather than plainsong, why not revert to singing your psalms in metre. Rollo Wood's Praise and Glory has some lively settings.
Some of the tunes were very familiar, especialy Cranbrook, though the words are other than those I know. The version I am most familiar with begins

"Where has tha bin since I saw thee,
On Ilkla Moor bah t'at?"

Abends is familiar to 'Through all the changing scenes of life' and Lydia (Phillips) is one of the many alternatives to 'O for a thousand tongues to sing...' though I am more used to Lyngham.

The NV lacks some of pith of the Scottish (Roos) Version of psalms in metre, but both are something of an improvement on Sternhold and Hopkins (OV). That said, the Old Hundreth remains familiar to this day, whilst off the top of my head I cannot think of anything from Tate and Brady that is still that familiar.

PD

[ 26. July 2013, 03:52: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Thanks, PD. All you say about clutter is certainly coördinate with all the rest you've said.
 
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... I do wish I could get them chanting the office to plainsong on weekdays, but perhaps that will come in the Lord's time and not mine! Maybe, they just prefer to say not sing. As a priest one just has to keep heart, eyes and eas open, and try to perceive the need.

Another idea I need to play with at some point is that of reviving West Gallery Music as part of the liturgy. My organist is big on Baroque music, and likes slightly off the beaten track stuff, and plays a lot of good second rate stuff by English and American composers of the 1700s. We have even had Turlough O'Carolan arrange for keyboard played on the organ as the voluntary after Church of a Sunday. It went over well, I can assure you.

I would like to be a bit more "Volkskirche" in the way we do things, but I have to deal with the ghost of Victorian "properness." It would be nice to do a 'Jane Austen Era' service once in a while, and I would love it if the back pew was once again the singers pew, and we had a little instrumental music in church. Just spare me the guitars and drum kits - that's getting boring fellas!

Rather than plainsong, why not revert to singing your psalms in metre. Rollo Wood's Praise and Glory has some lively settings.
Some of the tunes were very familiar, especialy Cranbrook, though the words are other than those I know. The version I am most familiar with begins

"Where has tha bin since I saw thee,
On Ilkla Moor bah t'at?"

Abends is familiar to 'Through all the changing scenes of life' and Lydia (Phillips) is one of the many alternatives to 'O for a thousand tongues to sing...' though I am more used to Lyngham.

The NV lacks some of pith of the Scottish (Roos) Version of psalms in metre, but both are something of an improvement on Sternhold and Hopkins (OV). That said, the Old Hundreth remains familiar to this day, whilst off the top of my head I cannot think of anything from Tate and Brady that is still that familiar.

PD

The NV versions of Pss 34 and 42 (Through all the changing scenes of life and As pants the heart) are, I would suggest, still pretty well known - albeit only for a few verses. I can only ever recall coming across an OV psalm in a service once. Kethe's version of Ps 100 (Old Hundredth, though the tune was originally set to Ps 134) isn't in fact the OV version - that has a ballad metre version by Hopkins. Kethe's version appeared in the Anglo-Genevan Psalter of 1561, but not Day's Psalter of 1562 (the first "standard" edition of the OV). It appeared in a supplement to the 1564 printing, and, of course, in the 1564 Scottish Psalter which substituted in a number of cases versions by Kethe (9 in all, including pretty good ones of Pss 91 and 104), Craig, Whittingham and Pullain &c for those of Sternhold or Hopkins. Millar Patrick's Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody is, as ever, useful on this point.

It isn't particularly accurate to decribe the 1650 Scottish Psalter as the 'Rous' version. The compilers started with Rous and other sources, but substituted so many bits and pieces from other versions or that not that much Rous was left. Ian Bradley in his collection of favourite hymns gives the sources as far as can be determined for Ps 23 - it really was translation by committee. Rous had no variety of metre - everything was in ballad metre.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
'being like Watts and Co's backroom.'

PD

Lovely phrase - conjures up images of orgies in vestments
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
'being like Watts and Co's backroom.'

PD

Lovely phrase - conjures up images of orgies in vestments
There's websites for that sort of thing, at least until Call-Me-Dave gets his bill through.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
The NV versions of Pss 34 and 42 (Through all the changing scenes of life and As pants the heart) are, I would suggest, still pretty well known - albeit only for a few verses. I can only ever recall coming across an OV psalm in a service once. Kethe's version of Ps 100 (Old Hundredth, though the tune was originally set to Ps 134) isn't in fact the OV version - that has a ballad metre version by Hopkins. Kethe's version appeared in the Anglo-Genevan Psalter of 1561, but not Day's Psalter of 1562 (the first "standard" edition of the OV). It appeared in a supplement to the 1564 printing, and, of course, in the 1564 Scottish Psalter which substituted in a number of cases versions by Kethe (9 in all, including pretty good ones of Pss 91 and 104), Craig, Whittingham and Pullain &c for those of Sternhold or Hopkins. Millar Patrick's Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody is, as ever, useful on this point.

It isn't particularly accurate to decribe the 1650 Scottish Psalter as the 'Rous' version. The compilers started with Rous and other sourc [Overused] es, but substituted so many bits and pieces from other versions or that not that much Rous was left. Ian Bradley in his collection of favourite hymns gives the sources as far as can be determined for Ps 23 - it really was translation by committee. Rous had no variety of metre - everything was in ballad metre.

[Overused]
That gave me my quota on new facts to file away for today! I had quite forgotten that 'Through all the changing scenes of life' was a metrical of Ps.34. I also need to brush up on my metrical Psalter history!

PD
 
Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :
 
Despite Liturgical wars, I don't really care what form of Anglican service I attend when all is said and done (although my sneezing and asthma when its high up the candle stick does limit this expression of worship to a once only visit).

What I care about is the welcome for those new to the faith, for seekers such as young families who have not been raised themselves in the church.

Working with young children and their families I often worry that the boring middle of the road provision including the ubiquitous 80 year old organists will not resonate culturally with them regardless of the preparation and evangelism and discipleship offered through Messy Church, Playgroup, Mainly Music etc.

I feel almost embarrassed in inviting them to such old-fashioned, dull and too often incomprehensible offerings. But I'm only a lay person, what do I know!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
Despite Liturgical wars, I don't really care what form of Anglican service I attend when all is said and done (although my sneezing and asthma when its high up the candle stick does limit this expression of worship to a once only visit).

What I care about is the welcome for those new to the faith, for seekers such as young families who have not been raised themselves in the church.

Working with young children and their families I often worry that the boring middle of the road provision including the ubiquitous 80 year old organists will not resonate culturally with them regardless of the preparation and evangelism and discipleship offered through Messy Church, Playgroup, Mainly Music etc.

I feel almost embarrassed in inviting them to such old-fashioned, dull and too often incomprehensible offerings. But I'm only a lay person, what do I know!

You're absolutely damned right, but don't expect a sympathetic hearing from the denizens of this particular part of the SoF.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I read womanspeak as implying that the style or details of worship are unimportant compared to the genuineness of the participants. Not 'lets not bother about how we worship as long as we welcome people'.

Each style of liturgy - Dearmerite or Tridentine High Mass, post-Vat2/Common Worship, formal Protestant bible-and-hymn sandwich, modern praise service, Quaker meeting, etc etc - has its own integrity and as long as the people involved in it believe in it and respect that integrity, the 'welcome' will take care of itself. All too often people appear embarrassed by the worship they are offering and it comes across as false.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
Working with young children and their families I often worry that the boring middle of the road provision including the ubiquitous 80 year old organists will not resonate culturally with them regardless of the preparation and evangelism and discipleship offered through Messy Church, Playgroup, Mainly Music etc.

Yeah, it's funny how a lot of church-based activities are tailored to be culturally relevant to people with little or no church background, but then there's often a massive cultural jump to the actual church services; with people in funny robes, ancient languages, unexplained rituals and so on. As if those things are more important than welcoming people into the family of God...

I know people here have explained the importance of the funny robes, ancient languages etc. etc. but I still don't understand why they are a necessary part of how we should gather to praise God and encourage one another.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I would suggest that the "otherness" of Christian worship is itself necessary - worship at its best is a foretaste of heaven, and if the world in general were like that there would be no need of services at all. Otherness occurs because Christ is not like the world.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, I don't understand why wearing chinos, putting your hands in the air, singing every chorus three times and punctuating your prayers with 'Lord, we just want to...' at least twice every sentence are necessary to worshipping God. But I accept that they work for some people.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Personally I don't really "get" either of them. Both stereotyped styles seem utterly culturally divorced from anything normal people do or can relate to.

The people in the churches of course are not "normal people". If they were, they'd be playing football/out on the club ride/reading the paper/in bed/visiting relatives along with the other 95% of the population.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
wearing chinos

Typical clothing for many developed-world people in semi-formal situations.
quote:
putting your hands in the air
Just a typical expression of celebration and joy.
quote:
singing every chorus three times
Helps newcomers learn the songs quicker, that's all.
quote:
punctuating your prayers with 'Lord, we just want to...' at least twice every sentence
Inelegant language, I grant you, but if that's the language of the people...

None of these things are 'necessary to worshipping God', IMO. They are merely about worshipping God and gathering together to encourage one another in the life of Christian discipleship without putting up cultural barriers for those who are new to, or on the fringe of, the church community.

[ 05. August 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
putting your hands in the air
Just a typical expression of celebration and joy.


Really?

Thurible
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Sure, at concerts and sporting events for a start.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:


I know people here have explained the importance of the funny robes, ancient languages etc. etc. but I still don't understand why they are a necessary part of how we should gather to praise God and encourage one another.

That's more or less the point I was making. If your church, Kevin, started to think that they 'ought' to wear robes and chant in Latin, but couldn't do that without being embarrassed about it, then there would be something wrong. They are clearly not a necessary part for your community. However, it would be equally wrong and embarrassing for the Dean of St Paul's (for example) to suddenly appear at the altar one Sunday in chinos and polo shirt, having sent the choir packing and shredded all the copies of Common Worship eucharist.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
punctuating your prayers with 'Lord, we just want to...' at least twice every sentence
Inelegant language, I grant you, but if that's the language of the people...


A big 'if'. I've never heard anybody talk like that outside of (a particular kind of) church. If it's the 'language of the people' it's the language of a very narrow sub-set of middle-class anglophones strongly influenced by American evangelical jargon.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sure, at concerts and sporting events for a start.

Concerts I can't really speak to but, at football matches, one might jump up and down, one might punch the air, one might hug one's neighbour. But one's hardly going to stand there with a hand raised whilst singing "Wanky, wanky, wanky Oxford", for example.

Thurible

[ 05. August 2013, 11:14: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
punctuating your prayers with 'Lord, we just want to...' at least twice every sentence
Inelegant language, I grant you, but if that's the language of the people...


A big 'if'. I've never heard anybody talk like that outside of (a particular kind of) church. If it's the 'language of the people' it's the language of a very narrow sub-set of middle-class anglophones strongly influenced by American evangelical jargon.
I just really want to say, Angloid, that I really agree, Angloid, with that, and I just really want to say that that's really just not how I talk normally, Angloid.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
punctuating your prayers with 'Lord, we just want to...' at least twice every sentence
Inelegant language, I grant you, but if that's the language of the people...


A big 'if'. I've never heard anybody talk like that outside of (a particular kind of) church. If it's the 'language of the people' it's the language of a very narrow sub-set of middle-class anglophones strongly influenced by American evangelical jargon.
I just really want to say, Angloid, that I really agree, Angloid, with that, and I just really want to say that that's really just not how I talk normally, Angloid.
[Smile] [Overused] [Killing me] [Axe murder]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sure, at concerts and sporting events for a start.

Concerts I can't really speak to but, at football matches, one might jump up and down, one might punch the air, one might hug one's neighbour. But one's hardly going to stand there with a hand raised whilst singing "Wanky, wanky, wanky Oxford", for example.

Uhhhhh..... yes, sometimes they do. Really. OK, the words are likely to be ruder but...

Not so much the one arm held vertically thing beloved of charismatic evangelicals and left-wing olympic medallists but more often both arms held out at about 45 degrees, with the fingers in appropriate signalling positions
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Oh, I agree entirely, ken, about the double handed thing. (Certainly when we played Millwall at Wembley a couple of years back...)

It was, rather, the idea of the gentle, arm up, let's sway type thing.

Thurible
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
putting your hands in the air
Just a typical expression of celebration and joy.
I'd be tempted to tell them where the toilets are - assume their hand is up because they 'want to be excused.'
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
wearing chinos

Typical clothing for many developed-world people in semi-formal situations.
quote:
putting your hands in the air
Just a typical expression of celebration and joy.
quote:
singing every chorus three times
Helps newcomers learn the songs quicker, that's all.
quote:
punctuating your prayers with 'Lord, we just want to...' at least twice every sentence
Inelegant language, I grant you, but if that's the language of the people...

None of these things are 'necessary to worshipping God', IMO. They are merely about worshipping God and gathering together to encourage one another in the life of Christian discipleship without putting up cultural barriers for those who are new to, or on the fringe of, the church community.

Blimey, SCK, I thought I was taking the piss out of you, but even though I've checked my irony meter a couple of times, you do really seem to be serious!
As I say, if they work for you and yours, fine. I'll accept that and you can have the decency to accept that liturgy and vestments work for some of the rest of us- including some newcomers. If there's one thing worse IMO than snooty tat queens or BCP fundies it's the 'ooh look at us, we're ever so much more in touch and accessible than you are' crowd who don't recognise that what they regard as normal and accessible may well be just as much a product of a particular subculture, and equally alien to many others, as the stuff they are so smugly comparing themselves with.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Oddly, most modern worship comes across to me as being "fwightfully middle-class" and the property of those folks who would not say shit if they stepped in it. It always strikes me as surreal when they pray intensely about social justice for left-footed lesbians in Guyana or peace in the middle East, and do not pray, never mind try and do something, about the life destroying problems on their own back doorstep. It always puts me in mind of the old Victorian respectability vices of transference and avoidance.

Church should be different. After all, you are worshipping Almighty God, not a Tesco's shopping cart. How it is different is very much a YMMV but it was sign, symbol, and mystery being taken serious that moved me from being a curious working class baptized agnostic to being a committed Christian. Just as important was the fact that they did their fallen best to live their Christian faith from day-to-day, so there was a connection between worship and life. That is pretty powerful stuff.

Most folks have a pretty well-developed bullshit detector, so if what the church does is radically out of alignment with what the church says* then no amount of "dumbing-down to reach out" (other evangelism options available, but rarely tried, IMHO) then your efforts to bring people in are stuffed before you start. Oh, and the other thing is that your attempts to bring folks in are not going to be successful if they are "yours" and not "His." Evangelism has to be done in such a manner that it points away from self towards God.

One of the reasons I like the vestments and ritual of the catholic movement is that they submerge the individual into a corporate God-orientated activty - the Mass. Of course, that is my response to God, and I am aware of the fact that other folks do not respond well to that sort of ritualized behaviour, or prefer different rituals.

Anyway - here endeth the rant!

PD
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by womanspeak:
Despite Liturgical wars, I don't really care what form of Anglican service I attend when all is said and done (although my sneezing and asthma when its high up the candle stick does limit this expression of worship to a once only visit)...

By those standards, why bother limiting oneself to Anglicanism at all? If the form of service doesn't reflect any sort of doctrinal positions, one could just as easily drop into a Baptist church, and in that case one would need not fear for incense.

When I drop into a Lutheran church, I do expect that the language used reflects Lutheranism. I am Lutheran, and to be honest, it is probably the best fit for my beliefs. I do frequently encounter home-brewed prayers, and I'm afraid many of them make mistakes such as verging into heresy to preserve a rhyme.

When I encounter changes to the expected order of service, they invariably involve replacing congregational parts with performance parts (sermons, talks, musical acts, drama, etc.) Yes, I take issue with this too, as I like to participate by more than simply listening. Is it my personal preference? Sure. Yet it is also the norm set out and commended for use by the denomination, and thus it's not exactly like I am fighting for something out of the ordinary.

To be frank, some do self-concocted liturgy well. More power to them. Unfortunately, most do not. Then they persist in beating a dead horse.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Blimey, SCK, I thought I was taking the piss out of you, but even though I've checked my irony meter a couple of times, you do really seem to be serious!

Heh, don't worry; I know your post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I was just playing it with a straight bat, as it were.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If there's one thing worse IMO than snooty tat queens or BCP fundies it's the 'ooh look at us, we're ever so much more in touch and accessible than you are' crowd who don't recognise that what they regard as normal and accessible may well be just as much a product of a particular subculture, and equally alien to many others, as the stuff they are so smugly comparing themselves with.

Guilty as charged, at least to some extent. [Hot and Hormonal] I agree with what a few folks have already said, that authenticity is the key. Which will mean different things to different people, but I guess I mean churches using music that sounds a bit like the secular music their people are listening to at the moment, people wearing clothes similar to what they'd wear out to a mixed-company social occasion etc.
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Church should be different. After all, you are worshipping Almighty God, not a Tesco's shopping cart.

I'm glad the 'difference' worked for you, PD, in terms of nudging you towards faith in Christ, but I'm still struggling to understand the argument. However, I think that's based on our respective theological bases (that is the plural of basis, right?!) in terms of what we think is the point of church services / meetings.

As I've said upthread (I think it was this thread), IMO church meetings are for mutual encouragement and reminding one another of the wonderful, great God we belong to. They aren't for 'worshipping God', because IMO the clear New Testament witness is that worshipping God is a whole-life thing. Everything we do, if done for the glory of God, is an act of worship. From this theology springs the idea that church gatherings shouldn't be different from the rest of our lives; rather, they should reflect and be rooted in our lives. So I do agree with you on the connection between worship and life, I'd just phrase it differently.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:

Church should be different. After all, you are worshipping Almighty God, not a Tesco's shopping cart. How it is different is very much a YMMV but it was sign, symbol, and mystery being taken serious that moved me from being a curious working class baptized agnostic to being a committed Christian.

Much the same as my experience, except that I was an unbaptised agnostic. My only experience of 'church' before my late teens (apart from sporadic and unwilling attendance at Sunday school) was once or twice attending 11.00 Mattins and being bored out of my mind. Then I attended my first (very MOTR, said 1662 with vestments) eucharist and immediately sensed that something very important was going on. I didn't know what it was, but there was a perceptible sense of presence which made me feel it was worth taking seriously. All the solemn po-faced hymn-singing seemed irrelevant by contrast; as I am pretty sure any sort of charismatic worship would, had I encountered it. It's all very much YMMV, but it's easy to lose out on the mystery if one is striving after 'relevance.'
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
...it's easy to lose out on the mystery if one is striving after 'relevance.'

This would be an interesting idea to explore further, I think. Naturally, I want it to be perfectly feasible to have both mystery and relevance, but is it? Thinking about my own church experience, our Sunday gatherings are (I think!) very relevant but I'm not sure there's much mystery. Perhaps transcendence is a better, broader word, and I'd more readily say we have some of that...
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0