Ship of Fools: MW Report 2939 - St. Luke, Southport

Thread: MW Report 2939 - St. Luke, Southport 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=030420

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Report here:

http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2015/2939.html

Well, I dunno - YMMV, but this report seems just a tad negative..... I agree that a Cartwheeling Child in the Chancel [Ultra confused]

should perhaps have been restrained, but what was amiss with what otherwise sounds to have been a well-kept Patronal? Visiting choir and Bishop, a half-full church (at Our Place that would mean a congo of 100+), and what's wrong with having a modern-language form of the Mass? And what is meant by 'cafeteria communion'?

Oh, and there's often an Old Dear whose seat you may well be sitting in...not, alas, an Uncommon Phenomenon!

Surely the number of elderly folk present simply reflects the demographics of a genteel retirement resort (and, maybe, the parish as a whole)?

No - ISTM that St. Luke's (looking at their website) are doing a good job at keeping a more traditional expression of faith alive on their patch. IIRC, they've had a couple of interregna in recent years, thanks to the Ordinariate nonsense.....credit where credit is due, I think.

Ian J.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

This report reads as if the MWer had it in their mind ahead of time they'd not like it. And what is with that comment about the airplane question?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I didn't get the airplane bit either. What I did think when I read the Report was that the MWer had been expecting a particular and probably unrealistic "worship experience", and was then disappointed when it didn't happen. There is a distinct feeling of "things aren't being done properly, like they used to be in the old days". Sadly that could be applied to many churches, of differing traditions.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
This report reads as if the MWer had it in their mind ahead of time they'd not like it. And what is with that comment about the airplane question?

I assume his fly was undone.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Ah. Euphemism rules!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Ah. Euphemism rules!

I think the "airplane" hint was used by kids when I was about 8 or 9 years old.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

As in Capt WE Johns' lost classic Biggles Flies Open ?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The MW was disappointed they could not applaud.

I don't know what to say, I really don't. It's an act of worship for goodness' sake not a concert.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The MW was disappointed they could not applaud.

I don't know what to say, I really don't. It's an act of worship for goodness' sake not a concert.

Picky, picky, picky (the MW, I mean)!

We have a pretty laid-back church and we do tend to sit after the service is done to listen to the postlude. And then we do clap. Our organist is brilliant! But what gets me is that the MW expects "decorum" AND being allowed to clap. And "smells" were provided, but evidently too densely. And Communion was offered, but in "cafeteria style", whatever that means. And there were too many old people, but one too many distracting children. It sounds like a mish-mash of expectations that no church would actually meet.

Other than being a Forward in Faith church, it actually sounded nice.

I wonder how the MW's home church stands up?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

The reporter also complains that "Traditional wording has been replaced with a modern form"

Good grief, where has this person been for the last 40 years?

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

It is a church I would feel attracted to were I in the area.

One thing that intrigues me a little - I wonder how the MWer knew they could not applaud?

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I think he/she was the sort who waits (as I do, I admit, following the movements of a symphony) hands discretely poised, waiting for two or three others to gather in the acclamative action ...

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I suspect that "cafeteria style" means receiving standing at one or more communion 'stations' rather than going up and kneeling at the rail. We do both (at different times). The latter is useful for large numbers, and for those who struggle with the steps or with kneeling at the rail. IME it is also what our local Catholic church does

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Not being able to applaud. We had been asked not to applaud during the service, so I had to sit on my hands to stop me from clapping! It was a worthy performance by the choir and players and deserved tumultuous applause!

Posted by Wm Dewy (# 16712) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I wonder how the MW's home church stands up?

Good question. I thought the service described sounded quite nice. It might be improved if the child had a keeper, but I'm not the child's supervisor, so I wouldn't worry too much.

Still, as a mystery worshipper occasionally myself, I don't want to attack the guy doing the review. But I do wonder what his ideal church might be.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
This report reads as if the MWer had it in their mind ahead of time they'd not like it. And what is with that comment about the airplane question?
I assume his fly was undone.

The reporter actually wrote that the gentleman in question "had his front door open."

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

So why didn't it say that in the published report?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

From an editorial point of view I thought it was too direct. It was certainly odd language to appear in a section about what kind of welcome was extended.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
From an editorial point of view I thought it was too direct.

I wouldn't have had a clue what the airplane comment meant if it wasn't explained here. Subtlety is great, but I'll take directness over obfuscation any day of the week.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The MW was disappointed they could not applaud.

I don't know what to say, I really don't. It's an act of worship for goodness' sake not a concert.

Ah, but the reviewer wanted things to be done right. It reads like he wanted everyone to perform their parts in the liturgy in the proper way. For the choir to sing everything that was billed. For the preacher to be properly miked so he could be heard (actually, as an evangelical who considers the sermon to be the main point of a service the absence of a mike, or telling the preacher where to stand so that the natural acoustics of the building work to carry his voice, would be a big issue with me too). He wanted the congregation to sit respectfully, no children worshipping in their own way, no old ladies falling asleep. He wanted everyone to dress appropriately, no zipper related wardrobe malfunctions. And, certainly none of this modern language, cafeteria style Mass.

The performance just didn't meet his standards. And, at the one point it did he wasn't allowed to treat the occasion as a performance.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
From an editorial point of view I thought it was too direct.
I wouldn't have had a clue what the airplane comment meant if it wasn't explained here. Subtlety is great, but I'll take directness over obfuscation any day of the week.

Let's write it off as a pond difference in slang euphemisms, shall we? I'll consider amending the report.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

In the light of this rather strange cryptic euphemism it would be interesting if the reporter were to post here so that we can find out how much more of his/her words were "edited" and how much was in his/her own words.

One of the reasons I don't submit as many reports as I used to is that I was becoming increasingly frustrated that my words were being changed beyond recognition.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I don't read my MW reports (mostly the ones people comment on here) but I always assumed editing was minimal - the correction of a spelling mistake, for example. Though, I was aware there had been a couple of practically unitelligible reports that had been seriously edited.

Things like euphemisms reflect the background and culture of the reporter. I think that's an important part of the report.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though, it may be that we need a dedicated thread. Discussing the policy regarding editing of MW reports within a discussion of a particular report is not ideal.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

I find this MW report no different than any other: critical in parts, appreciative in parts, observant, humorous etc. The only difference is the reaction from ritualists who jump to the defence of outfits of this kind, usually without knowing them.

I view the comment on "demographics" as merely the classic self-delusion encountered so often. There are lots of children and families in every parish. Just because children are largely invisible in traditional(ist) churches doesn't mean they are not around.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
The reporter also complains that "Traditional wording has been replaced with a modern form"

Good grief, where has this person been for the last 40 years?

I have little truck with "ye olde worlde" English held up as some sort of ideal in Christian worship. However, St Luke's has had a reputation for years as being a bastion of English Missal usage - which is a rarity, especially in these parts. When I used to follow the blog of St Clement's, Philadephia, I recall reading of a group from the parish that had visited the UK and made a point of going to St Luke's for that reason.

So I can understand that someone might have gone there with that expectation and been disappointed not to have it fulfilled, and how this then might have coloured the rest of the experience. I don't see that as an excuse for mean-spiritedness, though.

As for why the English Missal wasn't used, we do not know. It could have been because the parish no longer uses the EM under the present priest-in-charge, or it may be that they still do use it but they were a little more recognisably canonical on this particular occasion because the bishop was celebrating. That is all speculation, of course.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The report reads as though the reporter had woken up with a bad hangover. But is Saturday night in Southport the sort of place where you can get one?

Please don't edit MW reports too much, even to remove Mystery Euphemisms.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

quote:
Not being able to applaud. We had been asked not to applaud during the service, so I had to sit on my hands to stop me from clapping! It was a worthy performance by the choir and players and deserved tumultuous applause!

Under those circumstances, applause is often invited, when indicated, at the end of the service, or possibly in anticipation when the service is about to begin.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, it may be that we need a dedicated thread. Discussing the policy regarding editing of MW reports within a discussion of a particular report is not ideal.

I can't see what could be contributed to such a discussion by people who have not seen the original draft and so have not compared that to the edited product. I would prefer that reporters who feel they have been over-edited would communicate directly with me.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Certainly, no-one can Monday Monday QB the editing of a report without having seen an original. And I'm also sure that the vast majority of the work you do is entirely uncontroversial, tiresome, cumbersome, excellently done, and appreciated. But, I can see a value in a discussion of general editorial principles. How much standardization do we want of reporting style? To what extent should editing be seeking to make a report more exciting to a reader? Or is the aim to make it more accurate for the church? How much detail is distracting irrelevance, and how much is fascinating local color?

Editing is not some neutral activity that brings writers' scratchings in line with some Platonic ideal, but something ultimately creative and value-laden. A discussion of those values could well be beneficial to the project.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

As suggested above, discussion of editorial policy related to the Mystery Worship process isn't really appropriate for this thread. I will consult as to what an appropriate place would be - but not here!

Thanks for your cooperation.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

As for why the English Missal wasn't used, we do not know. It could have been because the parish no longer uses the EM under the present priest-in-charge, or it may be that they still do use it but they were a little more recognisably canonical on this particular occasion because the bishop was celebrating. That is all speculation, of course.

Our mutual friend informs me that the English Missal is no more at Southport, and attendance has improved as a result. It's not how I would go, but whatever works ...

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The report reads as though the reporter had woken up with a bad hangover. But is Saturday night in Southport the sort of place where you can get one?

Other than sitting at home with Strictly Come Dancing on the telly and a cup of Ovaltine, I would have thought there was little opportunity for anything else in Southport on a Saturday night.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The report has been withdrawn.

Posted by Lincoln Imp (# 17123) on :

Why? Was it at the request of the MW? Or for a bit of over-zealous editing? Or was it because some people who were not there perceive their theology/ churchmanship is under attack?

I seem to recall that there is a comment function, which "wronged" or third parties could use. In other reports it has been used to defend or attack impressions. See here, just one example: http://www.shipoffools.com/mystery/comments/1218.html
What makes the case discussed in this thread different and leads to withdrawal of a report? It makes me just a touch uneasy.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Maybe the MW felt unhappy that s/he received so much criticism here. Perceived "dog-piling" isn't just for Hell.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Contrary to popular belief, the report as published followed the reporter's original draft almost verbatim -- except for the euphemism about the airplane. This included a substitution that the reporter had requested during the editing process, even going so far as to file an amended report with the substitution in it.

After the thread appeared, the reporter requested that the substitution be deleted in favor of the original language.

In light of the criticism expressed, I thought it better to withdraw the report than to engage in post-publication editing, which I don't like to do anyway except to correct errors.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Another pond difference - airplanes may fly out from JFK. but they are aeroplanes when they land at Heathrow.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Another pond difference - airplanes may fly out from JFK. but they are aeroplanes when they land at Heathrow.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Or simply planes here.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

You can still read the MW report here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NmLnKa7RTC8J:shipoffools.com/mystery/2015/2939.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk& gl=us

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
You can still read the MW report here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NmLnKa7RTC8J:shipoffools.com/mystery/2015/2939.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk& gl=us

Or perhaps not:

quote:
404. That’s an error.

The requested URL /search?q=cache:NmLnKa7RTC8J:shipoffools.com/mystery/2015/2939.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Or simply planes here.

Or even more simply 'jet'!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0