Thread: MW: Sunday Assembly but not the Quakers? 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=027574

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I notice that recently The Sunday Assembly was MWd despite not being trinitarian because their service resembled what Chistian churches do (specifically noted were hymns, message and food).

In the US, there is more than one strand of Quakerism and it is not uncommon to find a Quaker Meeting that uses hymns, has a message preached, and offers food afterwards. In fact, this would characterize a sizable number of Quaker Meetings in the US.

So my question, humbly, is this: if the rules are to be bent for a non-theistic church based, not on theology but on how the service is enacted, can't the rules also be bent for the Quakers?

sabine
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
Of course. We've had MW reports on Friends meetings before. Here's one, and here's another one.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Amanda, I'm so sorry to have put you to the trouble of posting those links. The last time I asked about it (truthfully, not recently) I was told that Quakers didn't qualify and so I haven't kept up to date.

My apologies,

sabine
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
In the dim and distant past there were occasional MW's of Unitarians - I was given to understand that current policy would be that this would no longer be considered appropriate. Are you possibly thinking of them?
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
There was a discussion some time ago about relaxing the policy somewhat. The recent report on a Unitarian church was allowed because the service was related to Christmas. We also published a report a few years ago on the memorial service for the president of the Mormon church who had just died.

I think the current policy can be summed up by saying that we will consider reports on non-Trinitarian churches on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the service.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Thank you for the clarification Amanda.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Of course. We've had MW reports on Friends meetings before. Here's one, and here's another one.

And I did one on Quakers who met in someone's home in Cairo many years ago. No link because it was archived and seemingly disappeared.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
The link is here. Look in the "Elsewhere" archive at the very bottom.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Hooray - thank you - brought back memories.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Thanks for posting those links. Obviously, I was operating with outdated info when I posted the OP.

Given the fact that all three of the Meetings for Worship linked here have a pretty standard style of worship among Friends, I would be interested to know what the criteria is for accepting a MW of a Quaker Meeting on a case-by-case basis. Would it need to resemble those already done?

And would the MWer need to be a person who is not a Friend?

I think that some people would be interested in the variety of worship styles that Quakers have in the US.

Thanks,

sabine
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
The discussion found here and at other sources would seem to indicate that many, if not all, Quakers would call themselves Trinitarian. Thus, MW reports on Quaker meetings will always be candidates for publication.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
That maybe true in the States and Africa - much less so in mainland UK.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
And would the MWer need to be a person who is not a Friend?
sabine

I don't see why. Many of my MW reports have been on C. of E. churches and i am C. of E.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
We encourage MWers to go outside their denomination, but let's face it . . . most of us are most comfortable in (and knowledgeable about) our own denominations.

[ 17. April 2014, 20:18: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
We encourage MWers to go outside their denomination

We do? I didn't know that.

[ 18. April 2014, 01:32: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The discussion found here and at other sources would seem to indicate that many, if not all, Quakers would call themselves Trinitarian. Thus, MW reports on Quaker meetings will always be candidates for publication.

Thanks again for the clarification. I appreciate your patience with my questions.

Not all Quakers would self-identify as Trinitarian even if they self-identify as Christian. And individual Meetings and the Society of Friends as a whole have not historically taken a formal position on this. It would violate the whole "we avoid making credal statements" Quaker tradition. That said, people who have similar spiritual beliefs tend to find each other and places where others who share their spiritual POVs abound, and this is also true among Friends.

But that is a topic for another section of these boards. [Smile]

sabine

[ 18. April 2014, 15:53: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
FYI, the person in the link who answered the question about trinitarianism is from one particular branch of the Quakers in the US and wouldn't be representative of FRiends as a whole.

sabine
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
We encourage MWers to go outside their denomination

We do? I didn't know that.
I thought the general idea was to experience the church as an outsider. Crossing denominational boundaries makes the report from further outside.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
The discussion about MWs in Ecclesiantics seems to often center around complaints that the outsider didn't understand what was going on. (At least, those are the discussions that I remember most.)

This might say more about Ecclesiantics than about Mystery Worshipping.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I've noticed that when it comes to the question about making a particular church their regular place of worship, MWs sometimes give a low or middling score on the basis that the church's style isn't what they're used to. The question seems a bit redundant if people who are visiting from outside a particular tradition are highly likely to give this kind of response.

Having said that, I haven't done a study of the most likely responses to this or any other question that MWs have to answer! It would be rather interesting to see some sort of analysis of the answers given over a range of time.

Regarding the OP, if it's okay to visit Sunday Assemblies, then it should be okay to visit Quaker or Unitarian meetings. Indeed, given our postmodern times, there are probably some members of sectarian groups who are actually more 'orthodox' than some members of mainstream churches, so perhaps any kind of group with a Christian heritage should be included....
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
It brings to mind the question 'what do people use the Mystery Worshipper reports for?'

For me, if I am either visiting an area or thinking of moving there, I would want an outsider's perspective on a few of the churches around there. Also, they can be useful for the church themselves to see how they are seen.

For example, I was a part of a church that had a report done when we realised that we weren't clear enough about the various ministries the church had. In effect, our good deeds were so secret that nobody knew about them and so didn't turn to us for help. This actually prompted a slight change to how much of the 'behind the scenes' church activity we put into the public services.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The discussion about MWs in Ecclesiantics seems to often center around complaints that the outsider didn't understand what was going on.

Yes, that does happen. But if the MWer has time, he or she might do a bit of research beforehand into the denomination's traditions and style of worship. Also, the editors are sometimes able to milden up the more kvetchy complaints.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've noticed that when it comes to the question about making a particular church their regular place of worship, MWs sometimes give a low or middling score on the basis that the church's style isn't what they're used to. The question seems a bit redundant if people who are visiting from outside a particular tradition are highly likely to give this kind of response.

But that doesn't rule out a response such as, "Hey, who knew? This is really something special! I think I'd like to attend more services of this type."
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
No, that's not what I meant. Svitlana's comment made me think I might have been unclear, but now from Amanda's comment I know I was unclear.

What I mean is that the MWer gives a perfectly good and honest report about the service from an outsider's perspective, and then an Eccles thread will be started to protest how, shock and horror, this stupid outsider MWer has completely misunderstood us.

I don't remember any posts in Eccles on MW reports that ever value the outsider's perspective and express insight that, you know, we might want to think about what we're doing if it's so incomprehensible or repulsive to outsiders.

I would be happy to be proved wrong. Perhaps the negative threads stand out in my mind more than the positive threads.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
One could argue that churches don't have to aim to have services that are comprehensible to outsiders. Evangelism, explanations and acculturation might be envisaged as things that takes place outside worship. Unfortunately, the churches don't do this sort of thing anywhere near enough, so the worship service is expected to bear the burden.

The truth is that most church worship today is likely to feel a bit strange or uncomfortable to anyone who's not well-acquainted with church life; and someone who's very familiar with one style of worship might find the alternatives unattractive, for all sorts of reasons. It seems rather obvious to me.
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
That may be obvious and how it always has been and always will be. I'm pointing out that while the MW project aims to give reports from an outsider's perspective, (and now that's been pointed out to me I think it's a good goal, perhaps especially for a magazine of Christian unrest), the people inside often seem to react to that perspective with hostility, or perhaps indifference at best. At least for the little slice of posters represented by the threads I most remember on MW report threads.

Now I've made myself curious to know if my memory is accurate, or biased by the negative threads being more memorable. I sense a little upcoming project in the MW thread archives in Eccles. I'll figure out the correct board to put it on once I'm done. I suspect it's a Purg thread rather than a Styx thread, and I'll phrase it to include the more general questions that it might raise. If I find out I've grossly misrepresented the bulk of the threads, I'll 'fess up about that too.

ETA: I've also been thinking about questions related to your last paragraph, as an offshoot of the current Church Culture thread in Purg. I haven't yet figured out how to out my thoughts into words. I'm working on it, for either the
Church Culture thread, or perhaps a new thread. (Perhaps I'll consult with the Purg Hosts once I get my thoughts more in order.)

[ 19. April 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's human nature.

Someone posts a review of something you are involved in (eg: church, an amateur theatre group etc) and you will read it. If you find it positive, and you think it's fair then you congratulate yourself, put a link on your Facebook page and move on. If you disagree with it, think the review missed something or got you on a bad day you sign up and comment to put the record straight.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's human nature.

Someone posts a review of something you are involved in (eg: church, an amateur theatre group etc) and you will read it. If you find it positive, and you think it's fair then you congratulate yourself, put a link on your Facebook page and move on. If you disagree with it, think the review missed something or got you on a bad day you sign up and comment to put the record straight.

As someone who reviews a lot of books and makes an effort to inform the author (if they are still alive), I say to this: "Amen"
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The Alethiophile:
quote:
For me, if I am either visiting an area or thinking of moving there, I would want an outsider's perspective on a few of the churches around there.
This is how Other Half and I discovered our current church, when we moved to a new area and discovered that our parish church (otherwise lovely) had no other families with children and no Sunday School programme.

[ 23. April 2014, 22:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0