Thread: Split presidency 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=026500

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I've just read Leo's interesting MW report on St Mary's Shirehampton. In general it seems the sort of church I too would be happy in, even if I had to compromise on many preferences.

But I notice that the Reader 'led' the first part of the liturgy. While I am all for lay involvement, and I am happy with Readers taking the Deacon's role, I don't like the message sent out by having a robed priest sitting in the background in order to pop up like a jack-in-a-box for the eucharistic prayer, while someone else acts as president for the rest of the liturgy. It too easily suggests that the priest's role is confined to saying (what can be caricatured as) the 'magic words', rather than that s/he is the pastor to the community and gathers them in prayer from the opening greeting onwards. ISTM it is a perverse form of clericalism, as well as contravening the clear rubrics of Common Worship.

I'd be interested to know what others think about this, particularly Leo.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I usually act as 'deacon' but take the first half (with some qualms) if:

1) the vicar is at the other church which starts half an hour earlier and there isn't another priest available. I cross my fingers that he'll be with us by the offertory.

2) The organist is ill. The vicar is musical so will play and nip out of the organ loft at the start of the eucharistic prayer.

In the church I reported on, their vicar was on holiday so an elderly priest stepped in. Presumably the Reader thought it easier to most things rather than to brief him on details. (When we have a 'strange' priest, I prefer a walk through beforehand then stand right next to him/her and whisper.)

[ 28. August 2013, 18:11: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
I agree with you. This is not good liturgical practice. There are plenty of things that a reader could do, but I think that the same person should say the 'In the name of...', introduce the confession, say the collect, and the Eucharistic Prayer, and give the final blessing. This person must be either a priest or a bishop.

I also think it's the ideal for the same person to read the gospel, say the 'let us exchange a sign of peace', the memorial acclamation, and the dismissal. I think this person should ideally be a deacon (either vocational or transitional) or else a priest, but I know the CofE allows a reader to do it.

I don't about who does anything else.

[ 28. August 2013, 18:51: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
I attended for about 10 years a service which was nearly always organised in this way. Very frequently the leading of the first part of the service, the preaching of the sermon, and the celebrating of the eucharist would be done by 3 different people, though sometimes only 2 people were involved.

There was a vicar, an NSM, and at times a church army officer and at times a Reader. The service was in the evening at 7pm, and longish, 80 or 90 minutes, and all of them would have led a service in the morning as it was a combined parish of 3 churches. So I think they split the evening service to stop it being too tiring.

It wasn't the sort of church where people would have been too worried about doing something different from what Common Worship said, but I am fairly sure noone regarded the vicar as just coming out to say abracadabra. Quite often he preached and the NSM did the eucharist.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I usually act as 'deacon' but take the first half (with some qualms) if:

1) the vicar is at the other church which starts half an hour earlier and there isn't another priest available. I cross my fingers that he'll be with us by the offertory.

I'm now imagining you finding more and more obscure things to pray for to draw out the intercession... [Big Grin]

I'll also throw in another reason for split presidency that I saw once: in a church out west, the deacon was the one who spoke Welsh and the priest could just about get his mouth around the absolution and the Eucharistic Prayer. I think they were very much looking forward to his being priested.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I am going to comment as a Reformed Christian, it makes me acutely aware of a tension between:

quote:
it too easily suggests that the priest's role is confined to saying (what can be caricatured as) the 'magic words', rather than that s/he is the pastor to the community and gathers them in prayer from the opening greeting onwards.
and the situation at the church Leo commented on

quote:
In the church I reported on, their vicar was on holiday so an elderly priest stepped in. Presumably the Reader thought it easier to most things rather than to brief him on details. (When we have a 'strange' priest, I prefer a walk through beforehand then stand right next to him/her and whisper.)
If you are bringing in a priest from outside for what ever reason, to celebrate the Eucharist, how can they be a pastor to the congregation. That takes work on the other six days a week and by definition a visiting priest does not do it. If being a priest and celebrating communion are so closely linked with pastoring then surely when a priest is not there a member of the congregation should?

I actually have my own stance which makes sense for a minister to preside, but I do not see the role as coming primarily from them being the pastor to the community. When that is seen to be the role (are low church people) it leads to lay presidency quite naturally. Our Elders are all pastors as well as any minister.

Jengie

[deleted duplicate post]

[ 29. August 2013, 06:51: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am going to comment as a Reformed Christian, it makes me acutely aware of a tension between:

quote:
it too easily suggests that the priest's role is confined to saying (what can be caricatured as) the 'magic words', rather than that s/he is the pastor to the community and gathers them in prayer from the opening greeting onwards.
and the situation at the church Leo commented on

quote:
In the church I reported on, their vicar was on holiday so an elderly priest stepped in. Presumably the Reader thought it easier to most things rather than to brief him on details.
If you are bringing in a priest from outside for what ever reason, to celebrate the Eucharist, how can they be a pastor to the congregation.

I need to wear two hats in my reply. One is as a Baptist Minister, the other is as a member of our local URC Synod (our church is a member of both denominations).

1. As a Baptist: what very often happens these days is that a very large part of the service is led by the "worship leader"; the minister just comes to the front to "bring the message". Of course that can work very well if Minister and Worship Leader communicate well beforehand; at other times there can be an awkward disjunct halfway through the service.

It can, of course, be argued that the Minister's gifting is to preach rather than to lead (and, I fact, I have known Ministers who exhibit exactly that). It is also reckoned to be a Good Thing for there to be plenty of "lay" participation. However the general feel of this practice makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, even though I would not hold to the "high" view of ministry found in the RCC and (most) Anglican churches.

To continue, there is also the issue that Jengie mentions. Bearing in mind that Baptists do not consider their ministers to be "priests" and that their view of Communion tends to be memorialist, it makes perfect sense for a respected leader from the congregation conducting not just the first part of the service but Communion as well. The idea that you have to bring in a Minister from somewhere else to "say the magic words" is just not on - unless it is (say) a retired Minister who is well-known to all.

2. Speaking now in the local URC context, this has caused problems recently. Most of the churches are ex-Congregationalist and have a Baptist concept of worship and the Eucharist. But (theoretically at least) Presidency at Communion has to be done either by Ministers or - when this is not possible despite all efforts - by a lay-person duly authorised in advance by Synod.

What in fact has happened (and bearing in mind that most Ministers have several churches to serve, most of whom have their services at roughly the same times on Sunday mornings) is that a number of excellent lay-preachers have developed a strong pastoral relationship with certain congregations and have naturally presided at the Eucharist. However Higher Authority has said that this is irregular and must stop. Legally (canonically, if you like) they are right; but it has caused a lot of ill-feeling, especially as the churches concerned feel that there are more pressing issues than this to be addressed.

I've rather got off the point, I know ... but I hope it's of interest.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
If you are bringing in a priest from outside for what ever reason, to celebrate the Eucharist, how can they be a pastor to the congregation. That takes work on the other six days a week and by definition a visiting priest does not do it. If being a priest and celebrating communion are so closely linked with pastoring then surely when a priest is not there a member of the congregation should?

Apart from the fact that 'a member of the congregation' is unlikely to be 'the' pastor (though they might 'pastor' individuals), I tend to agree. The two reasons I am against lay presidency is that [a] I believe the Eucharist is not just the gathering of a local congregation but a microcosm of the whole Church, therefore the president should have the authority of the whole Church (or as much of it as is possible in our divided situation), and [b] I see most arguments for it coming from unsacramental churches where the eucharist is seen almost as an optional extra and certainly not as the essential act of the church.

But maybe we are heading towards a Dead Horse. To keep it on liturgical grounds I just think shared presidency looks fussy and is confusing. Though I can see the reason for it in the situations that leo and pererin describe.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Oh, and PS, I think that presiding at the eucharist is always a pastoral role. When I do this, even in a church where I know nobody, I am always conscious of drawing the people together and enabling them to be the Church. Obviously it is less than ideal if the priest's pastoral role doesn't extend beyond that, but it must involve at least that surely.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Angloid, referring back to your OP there is a different way of looking at this. I recognise it's affected by one's theology of ministry. Nevertheless, if one sees orders and roles as something which the church as a whole confers though its structures on certain people, to represent and shepherd the flock as a whole, what you don't like is quite a good expression of collegiality, of ministry being shared within the collective responsibility of the parish leadership team, or in this case, because the vicar was on holiday, the deanery or diocese.
 
Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
I tend towards the view, in any form of liturgy regardless of ecclesiology, that there should be a single person who gathers and grounds it.

There are some reasons from within my own tradition which make that important, but I would also point to standard practice in a range of art forms, i.e stand-up comedy, awards shows, formal dinners, variety shows, panel shows and so on. The MC/Presider builds relationship and rapport with the audience/congregation and nurtures them through the process. Even a non-linear alt*w kind of affair needs a facilitator or guide to host the thing and help people appreciate their options.

An MC doesn't actually have to say much in order to create a safe environment and encourage the flow. They are the anchor of the performance. In liturgy, the Presider may simply do the greeting, a prayer and the dismissal, but there needs to be a designated driver IMHO.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've just read Leo's interesting MW report on St Mary's Shirehampton. In general it seems the sort of church I too would be happy in, even if I had to compromise on many preferences.

But I notice that the Reader 'led' the first part of the liturgy. While I am all for lay involvement, and I am happy with Readers taking the Deacon's role, I don't like the message sent out by having a robed priest sitting in the background in order to pop up like a jack-in-a-box for the eucharistic prayer, while someone else acts as president for the rest of the liturgy ... I'd be interested to know what others think about this ....


To quote the late Margaret Thatcher, " No, No, No! "

*
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jugular, who is absolutely right:


An MC doesn't actually have to say much in order to create a safe environment and encourage the flow. They are the anchor of the performance. In liturgy, the Presider may simply do the greeting, a prayer and the dismissal, but there needs to be a designated driver IMHO.

Enoch makes a good point too, but the shared ministry should be expressed by different people sharing the many other tasks within the liturgy. And it's not just a question of your theology of ministry: even if you believe in 'lay presidency' it should be the same person who presides over the whole rite. Word and Sacrament are inextricably linked and should not be treated as separate elements, either by different presidents or (another bugbear of mine) the president wearing different clothes for the 'second half'
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
To quote the late Margaret Thatcher.
Do we have to? Spare us!


quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Word and Sacrament are inextricably linked and should not be treated as separate elements, either by different presidents ...

I think that is absolutely right and, indeed, URC clergy are ordained to the "Ministry of Word and Sacrament". It is less obvious in Baptist ordination as most Baptists have a "lower" understanding of the Sacraments and may, indeed, refer to them as "Ordinances".

quote:
... or (another bugbear of mine) the president wearing different clothes for the 'second half'.
This is not an issue in our tradition where clothes are pretty unimportant. However I was once at a service of Believers' Baptism in a Pentecostal church where the Minister conducted the first part of worship, set the congregation a-singing and then reappeared, ready for the baptism, in a glistening black wet-suit. I would also like to think he was wearing flippers but my memory may be playing me false there!

[ 29. August 2013, 12:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I once attended the Sunday eucharist at a well know evangelical church, where they had clearly put a lot of thought into what was going on - they had their own orchestra.

The vicar did the absoloution and the eucharistic prayer. The greeting was by a layman and everything else in part 1 (apart from the absolution) was by different lay people (including a reader in a leather jacket - a far more appropriate garment than a blue scarf, IMHO).

So lay participation? Nope. The body of the lay people sat throughout most of the service and failed to join in the hymns to a positively RC extent. At the gospel (read by a teenage girl) I spoke the response printed in the sheet. People turned round and stared at me as if I was doing something odd.

A sense that the body of the laity were actively participating was noticeably lacking. The lay involvement was only temporarily clericalising certain articulate or talented lay persons.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

The vicar did the absoloution and the eucharistic prayer. The greeting was by a layman and everything else in part 1 (apart from the absolution) was by different lay people

This is strange (but far from unusual) . It would make much more sense the other way round: for the priest to greet and the layman to say the 'absolution', even if the 'we-us' form was substituted for the 'you' .
It makes you wonder if evangelicals are really sacerdotalists and clericalists in disguise.

[ 29. August 2013, 14:00: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Word and sacrament are inextricably linked, and a shared liturgical ministry, with two or three ministers participating in this way shows them to be linked, and helps make it clear that it is the whole church that celebrates the liturgy.

If only one person does it, and it it's the same person the whole year round, and if it is always an ordained person, then that reinforces the false idea that the liturgy is somehow the property of the ordained, rather than belonging to the whole church.

The more the merrier I think. Every member of the church who is wiling to do so ought to be able to stand at the front and speak to and for the whole church, at least sometimes. That will signify and embody the unity of the liturgy better than having one man do it all.

As for magic words, as Jengie implied, having to get a visiting priest to come in specially when ere is no ordained priest in the church is a very strong clue that our rules are based on an idea of magic words.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
An ordained priest shows that the eucharist is not just the act of a local community but the wider church.

It was the evangelical church I mentioned above that clearly gave the idea of magic words.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
As far as this layman is concerned, he recognises an ordained priest has the authority to lead the eucharistic worship mainly or purely by virtue of her episcopal ordination.

Any lay person doing a priestly role has no more right or reason to do so than I do.
 
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :
 
Angloid would not have liked at all the church I was referring to as whoever was presiding at the eucharist did change their clothes in order to do so.

He put on a chasuble and went up from the body of the church to the altar, and washed his hands, and added water to the chalice, and elevated the host, and all in all it was quite different from the informality of the Word part of the service. But without that we would just have been another charismatic evangelical church, as it was made by the vicar who succeeded him, and celebrated the eucharist on a card table in his ordinary clothes, and lost from his congregation all who had reverence for the sacrament.
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
In a Catholic context such a thing is not possible. Neither is a lay person "acting" as a deacon. So I vote nay. [Mad]
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
My liturgical theology has over the couple of years has been much influenced by the writings of the Revd. Dr. Stephen Burns, onetime of the Church of England (teaching theology at Durham and Birmingham) before he and his family moved here to Australia to be research fellow in public and contextual theology, and more lately to Boston on the Faculty of Episcopal Divinity School'.

In his book 'Renewing the Eucharist : A Fourfold Celebration' and in conference papers preceding the publication of his book, Stephen argues for the use of the term 'Chief Celebrant' and 'Celebrant' to be used in worship: the chief celebrant is the one who leads in general (hence says the opening to the Collect, absolves, consecrates and blesses) while other parts of the liturgy are undertaken by other celebrants - reading of the Old and New Testament lessons, those who intercede, the music director, the greeters at the door, those who bring forward the elements for Communion, etc.

One chief, many celebrants. This arrangement works very well in our shack and I notice that, among those other parishes in this Diocese who are more sacramental in their worship, similar arrangements, even if the terminology is not employed.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Former Dean of Philadelphia Richard Giles, who is persona not particularly grata here in Ecclesiantics, suggests using the stole in the same sort of way the children in Lord of the Flies used the conch: to signify who is speaking/in charge at any one moment.

Whatever you think about the liturgical/theological/aesthetic implications of this (IMHO not much), at least it makes clear that the liturgy is not the preserve of one person. Giles insists that there is a president (presider in American terminology), who incidentally wears a chasuble, but who delegates his/her authority to different people in turn who take different parts.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Former Dean of Philadelphia Richard Giles, who is persona not particularly grata here in Ecclesiantics, suggests using the stole in the same sort of way the children in Lord of the Flies used the conch: to signify who is speaking/in charge at any one moment.

Whatever you think about the liturgical/theological/aesthetic implications of this (IMHO not much), at least it makes clear that the liturgy is not the preserve of one person. Giles insists that there is a president (presider in American terminology), who incidentally wears a chasuble, but who delegates his/her authority to different people in turn who take different parts.

If so, once that is the case, what profound principle is broken by other people doing other parts of the service provided the priest does the key priestly bits, i.e. presides, absolves and consecrates?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Former Dean of Philadelphia Richard Giles, who is persona not particularly grata here in Ecclesiantics, suggests using the stole in the same sort of way the children in Lord of the Flies used the conch: to signify who is speaking/in charge at any one moment.

Whatever you think about the liturgical/theological/aesthetic implications of this (IMHO not much), at least it makes clear that the liturgy is not the preserve of one person. Giles insists that there is a president (presider in American terminology), who incidentally wears a chasuble, but who delegates his/her authority to different people in turn who take different parts.

If so, once that is the case, what profound principle is broken by other people doing other parts of the service provided the priest does the key priestly bits, i.e. presides, absolves and consecrates?
Something's starting to develop in my mind here, and hopefully it's not one of those nasty giant headlouse things from Wrath of Khan. On the one hand, if we have the priest do the priesty bits whilst lay people do the other bits, we risk promulgating the "magic words" theology; lay presidency is out, so we're left with the Celebrant/President/Priest/Whatyamacallit doing the whole shebang.

Or you could just admit "well, 'magic words' isn't how we think of it, but, well, erm, Father has to do that bit or it isn't valid", which is what Enoch describes and what nearly everybody does.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:

... Word and Sacrament are inextricably linked and should not be treated as separate elements, either by different presidents or (another bugbear of mine) the president wearing different clothes for the 'second half'

Quite right. The Mass is not two services linked together, but ONE corporate act with several different parts or actions. The Eucharist should be treated as one whole with one priest or bishop as president or presider over the whole corporate act. thus signaling that unity.

*
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or you could just admit "well, 'magic words' isn't how we think of it, but, well, erm, Father has to do that bit or it isn't valid", which is what Enoch describes and what nearly everybody does.

But who ever said that a "special person" had to say these "special words" at Eucharist? Granted, Christ said them at the Last Supper, but none of us are he; Paul in Corinthians does not enjoin anyone in particular to say them at all, he's just giving instructions to a rather naughty church.

I suppose we come down to the idea of the Priest being the particular representative of Christ before the congregation, which is not an idea that Nonconformists can buy into. We believe simply that He is present by his Spirit, and that anyone can lead - although, for purposes of church order, it should be someone duly authorised or respected. In the Reformed tradition (less so in the Baptist/Congregationalist), that means a "proper" Minister.

And, of course, being Zwinglian (or just perhaps verging towards Lutheranism) in our theology, we do not believe that any spiritual or ontological change occurs in the Elements as they are consecrated. Any blessing that accrues to the worship comes through their meditation and reflection on Christ as they partake, or from their repentance and obedience to got in so doing.

Nevertheless I do feel that having one person presiding over the entire service (even though not actually "doing" every bit) gives it unity and integrity - as has been said by many posters above.

[ 30. August 2013, 07:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Former Dean of Philadelphia Richard Giles, who is persona not particularly grata here in Ecclesiantics, suggests using the stole in the same sort of way the children in Lord of the Flies used the conch: to signify who is speaking/in charge at any one moment.

Whatever you think about the liturgical/theological/aesthetic implications of this (IMHO not much), at least it makes clear that the liturgy is not the preserve of one person. Giles insists that there is a president (presider in American terminology), who incidentally wears a chasuble, but who delegates his/her authority to different people in turn who take different parts.

If so, once that is the case, what profound principle is broken by other people doing other parts of the service provided the priest does the key priestly bits, i.e. presides, absolves and consecrates?
My point exactly. 'Presides' is the key: saying lots of words is not the same thing. And the 'absolve' bit is an Anglican obsession IMHO.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And the 'absolve' bit is an Anglican obsession IMHO.

We don't have it: we simply confess as a congregation. Although the Minister may then give words of assurance which do have a faint reek of absolution about them: e.g. "The Lord has promised that if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" or "To all who confess their sins and resolve to lead a new life, he says: Your sins are forgiven; and he also says: Follow me".

But most Baptists don't bother.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
But, but, but...

The idea here seems to be that unless you are upfront saying something you are not participating.

But the eucharist is not primarily didactic, but a corporate action. The really important participants are the body of the baptized, inarticulate, unconfident and untalented though they may be, who bring their own faith, love, hope, fears and concerns in union with the eternal offering of Christ.

The president and other ministers are merely facilitators for them.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The question is rather is the corporate better presented by one person or many, I tend to think many.

Jengie
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
What we do, on Sunday mornings, is this:

The CELEBRANT (or Presider, if you must) says the Trinitarian invocation, introduces the liturgy, introduces the confession, pronounces absolution, intones the Gloria (but not in Advent or Lent), sings the collect, introduces the peace, says the Eucharistic prayer, distributes the consecrated hosts, says the proper post-communion, gives the final blessing.

The DEACON reads the gospel, says 'let us exchange a sign of the peace', introduces the memorial acclamation (i.e. says 'great is the mystery of faith'), administers one of the two chalices, says the dismissal.

An additional person (popularly called the SUBDEACON and always a Reader, ordinand or LEM) reads the epistle, and administers a chalice.

Two unvested representatives of the LAITY respectively read the first lesson and lead the intercessions.

The CHOIR, acting on behalf of the whole congregation, sing the introit sentence, psalm, gospel acclamation, and communion sentence (they also sing a motet).

The VICAR, whatever his other role in the liturgy is, welcomes people and gives parish announcements at the end.

The ENTIRE CONGREGATION sings four hymns and the ordinary (we only use Merbecke, Shaw, or de Angelis), says the confession of sin, says 'Amen' at the appropriate points (an important liturgical function, imo), responds to the biddings in the intercessions, says the congregational parts of the Sursum Corda, the Memorial Acclamation, the Lord's Prayer, and the Prayer of Humble Access or the Domine non sum dignus (we alternate according to season).

As I understand it, that's not atypical for a largish middling high Anglican parish, and is completely rubrical according to Common Worship, and I think not wildly different from what the Roman Catholics down the street are doing. Interestingly, although it seems to be those from more Reformed traditions who are stressing the need for lay involvement, there is more lay involvement than I've seen in the Church of Scotland, where (in my experience) the minister does almost everything (I admit that I don't know much about other Reformed traditions).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Two unvested representatives of the LAITY respectively read the first lesson and lead the intercessions.

I know what you mean - but our understanding is that ALL Christians (including clergy) are members of the laity.

quote:
Interestingly, although it seems to be those from more Reformed traditions who are stressing the need for lay involvement, there is more lay involvement than I've seen in the Church of Scotland, where (in my experience) the minister does almost everything.
You're right, of course, and you make your point eloquently; but you've slightly missed the point. We Nonconformists are not necessarily clamouring for more "lay" involvement; what we are saying is that you don't (necessarily, although this depends on which bit of Nonconformity) need a "special person" to do "the important bits"
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The question is rather is the corporate better presented by one person or many, I tend to think many.

Yes, exactly.

Ritual actions and words in liturgy are signs or symbols, they bear meaning, they are a sort of language. And like ordinary language they have connotations as well as denotations.

One man up front doing and saying everything tells people that worship is not a corporate act, but something the rest of us just watch. Different people doing different things says the opposite. And the more who take part the more corporate it gets, literally.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

One man up front doing and saying everything tells people that worship is not a corporate act, but something the rest of us just watch. Different people doing different things says the opposite. And the more who take part the more corporate it gets, literally.

I couldn't agree more with the first two sentences. I'm not sure about the last. There is a fine line between corporate worship and chaos, and between chaos and over-organisation. I often think 'less is more' when faced with an over the top anglo-catholic high mass. And if you have a congregation of 100, and even ten people take individual vocal roles, that still leaves 90% 'disenfranchised' if you assume that active participation is the ideal.

And my criticism of 'multi-presidency' isn't a criticism of many participants. Quite the reverse. The more participants you have, the more there needs to be an obvious 'president' to co-ordinate and express the overall unity of the liturgy.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Angloid [Overused]

An old member of the Community of the Resurrection (? Andrew Blair) said that good liturgy should be like good theatre:

ISTM we are in danger of confusing being a member of a congregation with supine passivity...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
So most of us are relegated to audience!

We won't be in heaven, we should not be on earth.

That is not a call for more to lead but to change the way you think of people in the pews.

Jengie
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Not so, JJ - people in the pews should be as much involved as the people up front, in pulpits, etc.

Put another way: Parish Priest/Minister (whatever) is in charge so they start the service: welcome, etc.

They may choose to delegate certain parts of the service and frequently do - and in a good parish this will involve:

In a small church it may be that everyone present has an active - that is up on their feet and out-of-pew - role. In larger churches some of these responsibilities may be shared out on a rota basis.

But sitting in a pew is not and must not be a passive act: after all, if you as a member don't contribute it means you don't sing, don't pray, etc.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Yes but you used the word "audience", people in the pew are not audience, they are not there to be entertained but to participate in an act of worship. It is their worship that is happening not that of the priest except in the extent that he is one of them.

If you like their role is like the chorus in an opera rather than the audience. The audience is God.

Jengie
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
People in the pew are not audience, they are not there to be entertained but to participate in an act of worship.

You are absolutely right ... but there are churches (and I don't just mean happy-clappy Evangelical ones) where the congregation does seem to be audience, witnessing but not really much involved in what is happening "at the front".

There is also the question as to how much those leading liturgy - whether High-Church thurifer, charismatic worship leader or Reformed preacher - are quite deliberately "performing" with the explicit aim of involving the congregation in the act of worship.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
The role of those up front is not to do something the rest can watch or listen to, and then hopefully go away feeling inspired by. It is to enable everybody present to worship.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0