Thread: Church coffee & hospitality 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=030501
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
I was directed to this interesting piece about hospitality and how churches reflect that in their post-service coffee. I wondered what others thought of it.
I've been in a few awkward circumstances where, as I tend to come prepared with my offering there is either a second offering or the kind of donations bowl as described in the blog post. I then end up offering nothing more as I'm too tight fisted to put in my credit card with the PIN scribbled on an attached post-it note.
n.b. posted in Ecclesiantics as it seems to have a fair overlap with Mystery Worshipper discussions.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Not a comment as such ... but the Diocese of Bristol have an amusing video which touches on this sort of thing. (The video is at the bottom of the page; the points it make are available in written form on a link further up).
In my last church we put on a Sunday lunch several times a year. The people who ran it insisted that it be free to all comers, and refused to cater if we made any kind of appeal. (We told "regulars" to put a bit extra into the collection plate if they wanted to make a contribution).
What Lawrence has said reminds me of going to the National Railway Museum a few years ago. Entrance is free, but you had to run a gamut of people asking for donations and needed to be strong to refuse! I have even gone to at least one free museum where you had to pass people in ticket booths who asked you to make "a suggested donation" - hardly welcoming, although I know they need the cash.
I have been in churches - mostly "New Churches" - which have explicitly announced at Offering time that they do not want visitors to contribute, as this is the responsibility of regular members. Not sure what happens at coffee time though!
[ 09. September 2016, 13:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Some years ago, the church we attended used to have people turn up for the coffee and biscuits from the street who hadn't been in the service.
Some, I know for a fact, arrived having been at another church to do the same thing.
How do you think of that?
It seems to me that hospitality is a two-way thing, so for me it is reasonable to expect something from someone who is consuming your tea-and-biscuits intended for the congregation.
Otherwise it's a bit of a free-for-all isn't it? Oh sorry, were you about to use this nave? Only I've just laid out my 12 course meal here for my dinner guests..
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
I tend to feel that coffee hospitality should not come with strings. If someone from the street shows up, it may be that they are hungry for something more than coffee and sweet rolls. It may be a perfect opportunity to enact Matt:25 values.
The "something in return" might be a sense of real fellowship with the neighbors.
sabine
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Missed the edit window:
The "something" may be a chance to reach out to those who are "hungry" and to do so, knowing that you and other churches in the area are engaged in the same level of giving.
Unless, there is a line around the block, charging for the coffee (even if the charge is only a requirement that a person be at the service) may give the impression that the congregation is not interested in their street brothers and sisters.
I'd be surprised if anyone is bold enough to ask for a multi-course meal in such a situation. And if the nave is booked for some other activity, coffee would have to be stopped anyway, no matter who is there.
sabine
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
(I always have some cash on me, so dropping off a dollar or two for coffee (or to pick up a newspaper at the store, or etc is not a problem.)
I never met a "coffee" with a contribution jar in USA. There may be some. At a meal it's neither common nor uncommon but most church meals are potluck so you've already made a contribution.
One local church has been struggling with how to pay for "coffee" after they switched from simple juice and cookies (brought and paid for by volunteers) to wanting lots of food (thinking a good spread will help attract people to the church).
For a while they were asking people to sign up to host coffee which meant everything from show up early to make coffee and set up and stay late to clean up, and also buy and pay for and bring food. The same few people could do all that both financially and in time costs. So a year later they switched to asking several families to host together. A year later they had the church contribute $40 each week for purchasing the food (not enough I suspect but a help).
Recently they've gone to "if someone volunteers, we'll have coffee; if no one volunteers, we won't."
At a different church volunteers bring the food, one week its some cheese and crackers, another weeks it may be a bountiful table, another week - whatever. A different crew sign up to set up and clean, so those providing food just bring food, not do the whole job.
One man fussed that some hostesses bring too much food, some weeks you can make a generous breakfast out of it, but others said what's the harm if that's what someone wants to bring? His concern was two-fold, that the purpose of "coffee" was to mingle and chat, not sit down and eat. But also as expressed above, abundant free food is a magnet for homeless, and that invites (or ushers in fear of) lots of problems we aren't set up to deal with especially on a Sunday morning when we are about to leave the building unmanned and unlocked as we head across the street to the next service.
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on
:
If coffee is to be “hospitality” then IMHO it comes generously and without strings. No miserly measuring of the coffee granules, no begging bowl. Just warm greetings and conversation. If there are nibblies, well and good, but please, no cutting the doughnuts in half or quarters. We are living out God’s generosity, and if we are squeezed-faced about it we certainly say something about our concept of God.
At one point many years ago in NYC spouse and I attended different TEC parishes. I’d attend at ‘mine’ at 9, then walk some 15 blocks to spouse’s church, arriving just in time for coffee. This parish was dirt poor compared to the one I attended. Coffee hour was strong coffee and plenty of it, and parishioner leftovers. There would be a small dish of left over tuna salad, a half eaten bag of pretzels, bits of cake or pie, a small plate of cookies. The variety of food was as great as the variety of the people -- Black/White/Hispanic, unemployed-on-welfare/city court judges, straight/gay. It was the happiest and most welcoming coffee hour I’ve ever attended. Need I say it? – I became a member there quickly enough.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
That sounds like a wonderful church with a very welcoming sense of the many ways in which we can break bread together.
sabine
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
Sounds like Kingdom life Wombat ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think after church coffee should be free. Good grief, it's not costing that much!
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Before I was - um - before I left my most recent post I was planning a training scheme whereby young people in and around the parish could be trained as baristas serving coffee to street people, worshippers and passers-by on a Sunday morning - costs to be covered by the mission budget and "koha", the Māori notion of grace-gift, from those who could afford to contribute.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think after church coffee should be free. Good grief, it's not costing that much!
I agree. (But it's coffee plus decaf plus tea plus decaf tea plus various things people put in tea or coffee plus juice for the kiddies.)
I've told only 10% of the congregation ever set foot in coffee, so a fee for "coffee" might be seen as a "special program user fee" rather than a fee on a general activity of the church.
But it does seem odd to be charged for coffee when I just came from the worship program and dropped a donation, when coffee (or tea) is such a common social greeting.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I've never heard of a 'donation' for after-church coffee. At our suburban church there aren't any street folk who might drop in for a cuppa, but if there were I'd assume they needed a gift, not to be stung for cash.
Yes, our rostered tea/coffee people bring the food, and it may be anything from plain biscuits to a batch of muffins or other plain baking. Of course once a month it's birthday cake.
Tea and coffee are free trade; members have an opportunity to buy it as part of a monthly consignment, and a few cents extra on each item covers the Sunday sociable drinks.
GG
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think after church coffee should be free. Good grief, it's not costing that much!
I agree. (But it's coffee plus decaf plus tea plus decaf tea plus various things people put in tea or coffee plus juice for the kiddies.)
I've told only 10% of the congregation ever set foot in coffee,
I'm hardly surprised. Wouldn't it scald?
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Being like the Queen, I don't carry money, so leave it to Mr. C. to worry about. But I've never noticed our small donations bowl cause any offence - some people put money in, others don't. What's the big deal?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It's not a problem for us, either.
But much of the point of the article seemed to be the contrast between the size and prominence of the request (?demand) for Donations, and the minginess of the way in which coffee was dispensed, and its quality.
[ 10. September 2016, 14:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
The dread word in this context is "unsustainable". It can have many meanings, but most of them boil down to "we can't be arsed with this any more". Once the over-prominent donation plate is slightly less full than those who put it there would like, coffee is declared unsustainable, and withdrawn, in favour of an unlimited supply of religiomanic cant.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I was at a church once (don't remember which one -- I won't be back) where they sold tickets at the door of the parish hall. No tickee, no coffee.
Most places I've been to have a bowl for voluntary donations. That seems to cover it nicely.
At a church in New York where I sang in the choir before moving out here to Arizona, various church organizations would take turns being responsible for the coffee. Of course, the choir always put out the nicest spread. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainman:
quote:
I have been in churches - mostly "New Churches" - which have explicitly announced at Offering time that they do not want visitors to contribute, as this is the responsibility of regular members. Not sure what happens at coffee time though!
At a church, where I used to worship, the financial situation was sufficiently parlous that the Vicar was moved to explain the financial facts of life to the congregation. As it happened, we had a Baptism on that Sunday so he prefaced his remarks with: "Baptism family, you can ignore this, you're our guests". Inevitably, the Baptism family ponied up in sympathy with our plight. I was counting the collection with the Churchwarden and she remarked "can we get him to do this, every time we have a Baptism?"
Coffee, you put a pot out and donations are welcome. I've never known a church where this didn't happen. The partial exception to this was an inner city parish, on the Bishops hit list, where the money from the coffee all went to a local hospice and the person on the coffee rota paid for the drinks and biscuits. But then, frankly, if most churches were as bloody brilliant as most inner city churches are we'd achieve the conversion of England before Christmas.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Our host congregation put a bowl out, but the coffee (brewed), tea, and doughnuts are all open for the taking, and nobody is either "helping" or supervising those who come as to what they take or whether they give. I'm okay with that, and I've made change out of the basket before, too. And some people put in extra to cover the costs of food etc. for those who don't, for whatever reasons.
I wouldn't be okay with anybody supervising the table in a way which caused anybody to feel they were being monitored, either for consumption ("you took two doughnuts!") or for giving. What monitoring I've done myself has been only to prevent the children from taking half a cup of sugar/creamer and adding a single spoon of coffee to it. Yes, I mean that.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
But that's no different than the kind of monitoring you have to do of any small children who haven't learned proper buffet manners yet, and have no fear of diabetes.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I do not believe that at our church there has ever been a collection of money at the coffee table. We're grinding around this hospitality thing, trying to goose membership, and that involves raking people in under just about any pretext.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Not a coffee anecdote, but one about the 'donations' plate and non-church members:
An elderly lady of our (inner city) church who I admire arranged with an older man who plays an instrument, that he would play in a local supermarket this morning with a bowl out to collect for church funds. We owe a lot of money on a roof repair, and we have an aged and not wealthy congregation. The junior church were invited to turn out and help shoppers pack their shopping into bags, with bowls out for small donations. This happens now and then in our shops - it's not so unusual - sometimes for youth groups or kids sports clubs etc.
I felt bad about this - I'd have done it more happily for Christian Aid, and I expected people to say 'pay for your own bloody roof'. But I knew not many would go, and my kids were mildly enthusiastic - so we went.
And it was great! The till ladies chatted with me and my kids (we took a till each), shoppers sometimes said 'no thanks' but often joined the conversation and usually dropped some change in anyway, people were sympathetic about collecting to keep the roof on a church - it didn't seem an illegitimate thing to collect for, to anyone I spoke to.
I'd do it again. I came away really surprised at the absence of hostility from the general population, extending to a feeling of warmth from many of the shop ladies and shoppers. We won't have raised much money, but it felt oddly like a witness.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
If there are nibblies, well and good, but please, no cutting the doughnuts in half or quarters.
I actually prefer having the doughnuts quartered. My appetite is usually only big enough for half a doughnut - if whole ones are on offer, I'll usually decline (or feel really uncomfortable about my leftover half sitting conspicuously on the table). If quarters are offered, I'll take one - and then, usually, go back for seconds.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wouldn't be okay with anybody supervising the table in a way which caused anybody to feel they were being monitored. . . . What monitoring I've done myself has been only to prevent the children from taking half a cup of sugar/creamer and adding a single spoon of coffee to it. . . . But that's no different than the kind of monitoring you have to do of any small children who haven't learned proper buffet manners yet, and have no fear of diabetes.
Now that you've brought it up . . . I've been put off at many an after-service coffee where the children mobbed the sweets table, grabbing whatever they wanted and pawing everything else, leaving nothing for the adults to help themselves to. It does make you wonder if anyone is teaching manners anymore.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What monitoring I've done myself has been only to prevent the children from taking half a cup of sugar/creamer and adding a single spoon of coffee to it. . . . But that's no different than the kind of monitoring you have to do of any small children who haven't learned proper buffet manners yet...
Now that you've brought it up . . . I've been put off at many an after-service coffee where the children mobbed the sweets table, grabbing whatever they wanted and pawing everything else, leaving nothing for the adults to help themselves to. It does make you wonder if anyone is teaching manners anymore.
At my Mom's church the program was rearranged to put the sermon last, the kids marched out right before sermon, their Sunday school let out 15-20 minutes after the adult portion ended, giving adults some time for adult chit chat and first choice of sweets before having to mind the kiddies.
Somebody in that church did good logistical thinking!
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
A church near me has plans to employ a barista to serve coffee before the service and for people to bring their coffee in with them to slurp during the service. Their rationale is that it will bring people to church. I'm afraid that if that is what it takes to get people to that church then I don't want to go there.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
A friend described to me a recent ordination service in a formerly Anglo-catholic church, now a 'church plant', in London. As the procession of ordinands, clergy and bishop entered, they passed several people sitting on sofas in the aisles, supping cappuccini and smoothies. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A friend described to me a recent ordination service in a formerly Anglo-catholic church, now a 'church plant', in London. As the procession of ordinands, clergy and bishop entered, they passed several people sitting on sofas in the aisles, supping cappuccini and smoothies.
It's Rev!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A friend described to me a recent ordination service in a formerly Anglo-catholic church, now a 'church plant', in London. As the procession of ordinands, clergy and bishop entered, they passed several people sitting on sofas in the aisles, supping cappuccini and smoothies.
This is why exactly?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A friend described to me a recent ordination service in a formerly Anglo-catholic church, now a 'church plant', in London. As the procession of ordinands, clergy and bishop entered, they passed several people sitting on sofas in the aisles, supping cappuccini and smoothies.
This is why exactly?
Because of the big fuck you to the whole liturgy it implies. It's a sacrament, and should be the focus of the community's attention.
And the disintegration of community that it suggests to get from where that church was to that position is, to my mind, definitely worthy of tears.
Goes to show I'm not entirely cured of my anglo tendencies, or at least that I can still recognise a sacrament that is a huge part of the community's life when I see it.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A friend described to me a recent ordination service in a formerly Anglo-catholic church, now a 'church plant', in London. As the procession of ordinands, clergy and bishop entered, they passed several people sitting on sofas in the aisles, supping cappuccini and smoothies.
This is why exactly?
Because of the big fuck you to the whole liturgy it implies. It's a sacrament, and should be the focus of the community's attention.
And the disintegration of community that it suggests to get from where that church was to that position is, to my mind, definitely worthy of tears.
Goes to show I'm not entirely cured of my anglo tendencies, or at least that I can still recognise a sacrament that is a huge part of the community's life when I see it.
If it was a Mass, then I agree with you. If it was a Service of the Word aimed at enquirers, then not so much.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Because of the big fuck you to the whole liturgy it implies. It's a sacrament, and should be the focus of the community's attention.
And the disintegration of community that it suggests to get from where that church was to that position is, to my mind, definitely worthy of tears.
Goes to show I'm not entirely cured of my anglo tendencies, or at least that I can still recognise a sacrament that is a huge part of the community's life when I see it. [
So they can't be paying attention because they're "sitting on a sofa" and drinking coffee.
Please come around to my flat and try to persuade my family that they're not paying proper attention to a film they're watching because they're doing the same.
I don't think there is anything magical about sitting on a hard pew that means you're somehow more respectful and paying more attention to the bishop parading in. In fact, been in the congregation when the archbishop walked into the quire at Canterbury, I've felt on several occasions that he felt a bit uncomfortable with everyone staring at him.
[ 11. September 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
You mean there's really a church where they serve doughnuts? I'm changing my allegiance!
We've started serving the same coffee but now in mugs rather than plastic cups. It's amazing the difference - it feels so much better and more like being at home rather than in some grotty institution.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We've started serving the same coffee but now in mugs rather than plastic cups. It's amazing the difference - it feels so much better and more like being at home rather than in some grotty institution.
I went to a church this year that had incredibly fancy china teacups - all mismatched, because they were op shop purchases, but it still made things feel a bit more special.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
You mean there's really a church where they serve doughnuts? I'm changing my allegiance!
Every Lutheran church I know does doughnuts. Come to the dark side!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
You mean there's really a church where they serve doughnuts? I'm changing my allegiance!
My boys were quite a bit happier about the move to our current church (when I was hired on staff) after their first hospitality hour: assorted muffins, bagels, donuts, cookies, small sandwiches, cheese & crackers, sometimes cupcakes...
We like to eat.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
You mean there's really a church where they serve doughnuts? I'm changing my allegiance!
They did them at the New Frontiers place that my sister in law frequented, but that wasn't sufficient motivation. Wild horses and sedation would be required. I lasted about fifteen minutes before I had to leave.
We have a full meal after our services. Yesterday the theme was Indian. We have that theme a lot.
[ 12. September 2016, 09:13: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
For assorted snacks, I've always found New Frontiers churches to be the best. Croissants, muffins and coffee tend to get served both before and after the service.
In my home church, the cost of serving food & drink is all rolled up with the building hire so is funded from the general offering. We occasionally get people coming in asking for money, but there's a policy of giving food & drink instead, which some are happy with, though we've had the occasional rant.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
A friend described to me a recent ordination service in a formerly Anglo-catholic church, now a 'church plant', in London. As the procession of ordinands, clergy and bishop entered, they passed several people sitting on sofas in the aisles, supping cappuccini and smoothies.
This is why exactly?
Because of the big fuck you to the whole liturgy it implies. It's a sacrament, and should be the focus of the community's attention.
And the disintegration of community that it suggests to get from where that church was to that position is, to my mind, definitely worthy of tears.
Goes to show I'm not entirely cured of my anglo tendencies, or at least that I can still recognise a sacrament that is a huge part of the community's life when I see it.
If it was a Mass, then I agree with you. If it was a Service of the Word aimed at enquirers, then not so much.
It was an ordination. I'm not sure that ordinations outside cathedrals happen without a eucharist, because in my experience ordinations to the diaconate are always done in cathedrals - and even then they are usually done as part of a eucharist. I don't see how the community can be properly gathered if part of it is eating or serving doughnuts.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Because of the big fuck you to the whole liturgy it implies. It's a sacrament, and should be the focus of the community's attention.
And the disintegration of community that it suggests to get from where that church was to that position is, to my mind, definitely worthy of tears.
Goes to show I'm not entirely cured of my anglo tendencies, or at least that I can still recognise a sacrament that is a huge part of the community's life when I see it. [
So they can't be paying attention because they're "sitting on a sofa" and drinking coffee.
Please come around to my flat and try to persuade my family that they're not paying proper attention to a film they're watching because they're doing the same.
I don't think there is anything magical about sitting on a hard pew that means you're somehow more respectful and paying more attention to the bishop parading in. In fact, been in the congregation when the archbishop walked into the quire at Canterbury, I've felt on several occasions that he felt a bit uncomfortable with everyone staring at him.
This exactly. You cannot draw the inference you are drawing without having some kind of psychic insight into people's minds, which you do not have.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This exactly. You cannot draw the inference you are drawing without having some kind of psychic insight into people's minds, which you do not have.
No, I'm not. If I'm doing anything, I'm inferring a setup rather like my local such conversion, where there is an entire coffee shop complete with the required infrastructure, which is pretty much self-sufficient and has little, if anything, to do with the worship space (however defined). I'm also inferring that this infrastructure requires staffing, meaning that the coffee shop itself is an alternative focus of activity for others as well as for its customers.
At that point, the hospitality of God is being celebrated liturgically. The simultaneous functioning of a coffee shop confuses things in a very unhelpful way.
I appreciate that the liturgy could be structured differently, something like an agape meal, and at that point the coffee shop could be at very least the source of distributed food, and the cafe layout would be entirely appropriate, but that's not the picture created in my mind.
[ 12. September 2016, 11:23: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If the pattern of worship at a particular church is informal, with hard pews replaced by sofas and it being normal for people to buy a coffee on the way to church and then drink it during the start of worship (which is, after all, perfectly acceptable in many places of work with no one saying that people aren't concentrating on their job just because they have coffee with them), then why should the pattern of worship be any different just because it's a service welcoming a new minister?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the pattern of worship at a particular church is informal, with hard pews replaced by sofas and it being normal for people to buy a coffee on the way to church and then drink it during the start of worship (which is, after all, perfectly acceptable in many places of work with no one saying that people aren't concentrating on their job just because they have coffee with them), then why should the pattern of worship be any different just because it's a service welcoming a new minister?
It's not welcoming a new minister - that would be an installation. It's an ordination, i.e. a priesting.
This may be regarded as a bit of weird churchiness, but it is a sacrament, and as such, within the consecrated space, the appropriate focus of attention. I wouldn't personally choose to have the congregation on sofas because standing up and kneeling is harder than from ordinary chairs, but my problem is with the lack of focus on the sacrament.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Angloid didn't mention a coffee shop, or anywhere else, serving the coffee and smoothies being drunk. Nor whether people were getting up during the service to get a refill. There does seem to be a difference between a church selling coffee etc during the service, and a church where people bring coffee into the service (whether or not bought on the premises prior to the service).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
my problem is with the lack of focus on the sacrament.
Then, you still need to demonstrate that drinking coffee = lack of focus on the sacrament.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Angloid didn't mention a coffee shop, or anywhere else, serving the coffee and smoothies being drunk. Nor whether people were getting up during the service to get a refill. There does seem to be a difference between a church selling coffee etc during the service, and a church where people bring coffee into the service (whether or not bought on the premises prior to the service).
It strikes me that the real objection was a perceived lack of reverence. Which makes one ask (i) what actually is reverence; and (ii) whether we have decided that certain actions are reverent and others are not?
I'll be honest: I prefer "formal" church and I'm not too keen on people bringing in drinks; but I would be wary of saying that those who "do church" in different ways are any less connected to God (or paying less attention to what's going on).
[ 12. September 2016, 11:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I'd also be uncomfortable about bringing drinks into the church service (though, while in Japan I did take a bottle of water on hot days).
But, at the same time the Epistles make it clear that one model of church that was common in the first century was to meet over a meal. A meal substantive enough to be the only decent meal some people got. Pauls complaint wasn't that people were eating during the other activities of the meeting, but that some people ate so much that there was none left for latecomers (who, presumably, were those who had to work until released by their masters and hence most likely to be the poorest members of the church who needed the meal most), and some even drank enough to be drunk.
Compared to drinking enough wine to be drunk, bringing a paper cup of coffee into the service is hardly worth mentioning.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think a cup of coffee during a long service or Evensong (where the congregation often don't do an awful lot) is entirely appropriate.
To me the issues are entirely practical (spills, injuries, etc) and nothing about attention. Given that people often wander into Cathedral services late and wear a much wider range of clothing than is usually seen in other kinds of church, I'd think the potential distraction of someone drinking from a mug is minimal.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Epistles make it clear that one model of church that was common in the first century was to meet over a meal.
Yes. To me there is a real question as to whether they had "services" in the way we would understand them.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This exactly. You cannot draw the inference you are drawing without having some kind of psychic insight into people's minds, which you do not have.
No, I'm not. If I'm doing anything, I'm inferring a setup rather like my local such conversion
Why would you infer that when there was nothing to suggest that in the original post?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
This exactly. You cannot draw the inference you are drawing without having some kind of psychic insight into people's minds, which you do not have.
No, I'm not. If I'm doing anything, I'm inferring a setup rather like my local such conversion
Why would you infer that when there was nothing to suggest that in the original post?
It was a leap of the mind, triggered by the mention of a church plant from a previous Anglo-Catholic tradition. That's more or less what happened in my local case, so I made the connection. May have been wrong. I didn't notice what I was doing at the time.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please come around to my flat and try to persuade my family that they're not paying proper attention to a film they're watching because they're doing the same.
This is something of a tangent to the coffee-and-sofas discussion, but I'd take issue with your comparison here. The liturgy isn't a spectacle that you're supposed to be watching and paying proper attention to - it's an action in which you are supposed to be taking part.
Paying attention to a film and participating in the liturgy might look fairly similar to an onlooker, though.
As far as the coffee goes, the idea of taking a coffee in to church (or any kind of meeting) tends to sit wrong with me. I think it must be some kind of unconscious cultural norm - perhaps it's that it's rude to eat or drink without sharing with those you're with, and if you just came to church from Starbucks, you probably didn't bring enough for everyone.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Many years ago there was a church in which some people put £5 or £10 notes into the coffee donation bowl. It turned out that they were using "coffee money" as a sort of "black economy." The Church of Scotland levied a contribution to Mission and Aid from the congregation's main collection, but the congregation could keep 100% of the "coffee fund." Hence some people were dropping the bulk of their offering into the "coffee donations." This church had amassed a four-figure "coffee fund" from money dropped into the basket at coffee time.
This ended very quickly when the church minister retired, and the new minister was appalled to find out what had been happening.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
In the US, probably because of the ubiquity of Starbucks, places have been gradually allowing you to carry in covered cups. The public library now allows this -- ten years ago they did not. I have certainly seen covered cups in the church pews. We will know it is bad when the pew racks start sprouting cup holders.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Interesting too that many theatres now let you take your interval drinks into the auditorium (if they're in plastic "glasses").
Presumably this is an urban thing though - it couldn't happen in a small village.
And where does one draw a line: if coffee or smoothies are acceptable, what about fast food?
[ 12. September 2016, 15:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The liturgy isn't a spectacle that you're supposed to be watching and paying proper attention to - it's an action in which you are supposed to be taking part.
Absolutely agree on liturgy being participatory.
But, how does bring a coffee into the service prevent you from participating fully in the liturgy?
quote:
the idea of taking a coffee in to church (or any kind of meeting) tends to sit wrong with me. I think it must be some kind of unconscious cultural norm
It's almost certainly (IMO and IME) cultural. I am very used to attending conferences where people arrive in the morning with a coffee from Starbucks, or later in the day one from the coffee break, and take it into the meeting - usually past the signs saying "no food or drink in the lecture theatre". Or, for a business meeting to have tea and coffee, and biscuits, available on a help-yourself basis.
And, if you really want to move cultures, look up inemuri which is entirely acceptable in Japan. I don't think anywhere outside Japan would consider that you're present and participating in a meeting if you were taking a wee nap.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE] ... As far as the coffee goes, the idea of taking a coffee in to church (or any kind of meeting) tends to sit wrong with me. I think it must be some kind of unconscious cultural norm - perhaps it's that it's rude to eat or drink without sharing with those you're with, and if you just came to church from Starbucks, you probably didn't bring enough for everyone.
This may be a cross-cultural difference, but it's not at all unusual here for tea, coffee, biscuits (US cookies I think) etc to be served during meetings, particularly long ones, or just before, to be consumed after the meeting starts, or for tea, coffee, water, cold drinks, biscuits etc to be available for people to help themselves to during a meeting.
This is so for business meetings in both secular or church contexts. Also, coffee, biscuits etc etc are normally served and consumed in home groups, bible studies etc.
So people can take their interval drinks back into the theatre for the next act, theatres often use plastic glasses, cups etc.
So the only issue here would be whether there is something irreverent about consuming food and drink in the formality of an actual service.
[ 12. September 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This may be a cross-cultural difference, but it's not at all unusual here for tea, coffee, biscuits (US cookies I think) etc to be served during meetings, particularly long ones, or just before, to be consumed after the meeting starts, or for tea, coffee, water, cold drinks, biscuits etc to be available for people to help themselves to during a meeting.
I heard of an interesting case where someone had memorised the entirety of Mark's gospel and was giving a recitation in church. There was an intermission, and it was commented on that there seemed to be something of a disconnect about following up the transfiguration with a choc ice.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is also the age thing. No one would complain if the parents brought in a bottle to feed Junior during a long service -- far better than a sermon broken up by howling. Cheerios, animal crackers -- the standard armamentarium of toddler management. Older children can be distracted/bribed with peppermints.
And there is the health issue too. Diabetics often travel with snacks; if they start to feel weird a dried apricot or so fixes them right up. There are plenty of health conditions that call for ready availability of water, etc.
So the whole thing is full of exceptions anyway.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is also the age thing. No one would complain if the parents brought in a bottle to feed Junior during a long service ...Older children can be distracted/bribed with peppermints... Diabetics often travel with snacks
In my youth one did not eat and drink except at meals or designated snack times like mid afternoon. All food was consumed in the eating spaces, not taken throughout the house or store or church or museum to nibble at and drop crumbs from wherever (for someone else to clean up).
Yes exceptions for babies to "eat" but kiddies were suppose to learn patience and diabetes be discrete.
Society is far more informal now. And the snack food industry has worked hard to convince us we need food or drink in hand at all times. A BBC documentary in 2012 that I watched more recently on YouTube details the efforts to get us to believe we must constantly snack.
So today we have expectations of snacks at every meeting and assume we will bring and nibble at snacks inside the hall marked "no food or drink."
I don't think its a theological issue as much as a cleaning issue. My local church meets in the casual halls for the contemporary service, and has to clean up abundance of discarded (and spilled) cups and snack wrappers. The formal service in the formal hall, if anyone brings snacks or eats it's discretely and without leaving trash. I guess a more formal environment non-verbally conveys different behavioral rules?
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This may be a cross-cultural difference, but it's not at all unusual here for tea, coffee, biscuits (US cookies I think) etc to be served during meetings, particularly long ones, or just before, to be consumed after the meeting starts, or for tea, coffee, water, cold drinks, biscuits etc to be available for people to help themselves to during a meeting.
That's not quite the same. Having refreshments available for everyone is one thing; having someone show up with his own private supplies and consume them in front of others is another. This is the distinction that I draw.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE] ... As far as the coffee goes, the idea of taking a coffee in to church (or any kind of meeting) tends to sit wrong with me. I think it must be some kind of unconscious cultural norm - perhaps it's that it's rude to eat or drink without sharing with those you're with, and if you just came to church from Starbucks, you probably didn't bring enough for everyone.
This may be a cross-cultural difference, but it's not at all unusual here for tea, coffee, biscuits (US cookies I think) etc to be served during meetings, particularly long ones, or just before, to be consumed after the meeting starts, or for tea, coffee, water, cold drinks, biscuits etc to be available for people to help themselves to during a meeting.
This is so for business meetings in both secular or church contexts....
And indeed in some contexts a 'meeting without coffee' is actually a euphemism for a bollocking.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If it was a Mass, then I agree with you. If it was a Service of the Word aimed at enquirers, then not so much.
It was an ordination, I am reliably informed. Hence, a mass plus.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The implication of relaxing on sofas, as others have implied, is that 'worship' is a spectacle/entertainment/or even boring lecture, but not an activity in which all participate. The contrast between a procession of robed clergy and a 'congregation' of passive spectators deepens the lay-clergy divide unacceptably. As does an unrobed 'worship leader' up front performing to a static congregation.
Of course most liturgy tends to contrast the 'active' participants with the majority of the congregation. But at least traditionally the latter will change posture from time to time (even if only standing to sing) and have some vocal input. And the presence of robed servers etc 'up front' stops it from being a clerical preserve.
However I have to say I don't know the church in question (though my informant was reliable) and the reality of the situation might not have been quite as it appears.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
If someone were to bring a cup of coffee into Mass at my parish, my chief concern would be that they were flagrantly ignoring the Eucharistic fast. The (much) lesser issue would be that it seems to communicate a certain disrespect for the proceedings, but I'm open to being convinced that I need to get over that.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
To my mind, there is a fundamental difference between the Roman Catholic and Anglican approaches to a central issue here. It is far closer to reality in many parts of Anglicanism that the eucharist is offered by the assembly, rather than by the priest acting alone. By comparison, my experience of Roman Catholic masses is that the idea of hearing mass is still alive and well, and attempts to shift it have been resisted.
The incident Angloid describes underlines, to my mind, one of the great problems with a more individualist approach to worship, in that it prevents the congregation from effectively gathering. If a congregation cannot effectively gather, it cannot become a community because it won't be observing its own rites, and as far as I know it remains the case that all functioning communities have rites which are the concern of the whole community, not just a few.
This is an important consideration with church plants because they start off being offshoots of other congregations, but if they are to survive must become self-sustaining. Therefore, they need to acquire the characteristics of viable communities, one of which is the recognition of its own rites. Without that, it can't go through its own life cycle and therefore cannot flourish independently.
I'm not saying that all of those rites must bear a resemblance to the traditional sacraments, but this is one of the functions they fulfil, and as I understand it at least, it's a function fulfilled in all communities which achieve any kind of longevity. At very least, there is a requirement for the rites to be recognised, and to be the focus of the community, since they are one of the means by which its cohesion is established and maintained.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The implication of relaxing on sofas, as others have implied, is that 'worship' is a spectacle/entertainment/or even boring lecture, but not an activity in which all participate. The contrast between a procession of robed clergy and a 'congregation' of passive spectators deepens the lay-clergy divide unacceptably. As does an unrobed 'worship leader' up front performing to a static congregation.
Some say the opposite: that pews create the 'spectator' mode, and that having a robed leader emphasises divisions. It's all a matter of perspective.
But what surprised me in your earlier description was that an ordination was occurring at a 'church plant'. Is this normal in the CofE?
I'm surprised simply because ordinations in mainstream denominations are often conceived as formal, traditional events, whereas church plants are usually conceived not to be formal and traditional. So a culture clash was always going to happen if no one had given this any thought in advance.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The incident Angloid describes underlines, to my mind, one of the great problems with a more individualist approach to worship, in that it prevents the congregation from effectively gathering. If a congregation cannot effectively gather, it cannot become a community because it won't be observing its own rites, and as far as I know it remains the case that all functioning communities have rites which are the concern of the whole community, not just a few.
I am currently pregnant. As such, I have been sitting on the cry-room couch, sipping water, and nipping out at the start of the sermon to buy Maccas next door - which I bring back, so that I can eat it while listening to the rest of the sermon.
My options are:
a) do this
b) stay home
Which do you think gives me the better chance of "gathering" with the rest of the congregation?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
In this particular neck of the woods post service coffee is free and real (not instant).
I have an inbuilt horror of charging for anything in church.
At last week's (adult)baptism there was a shared meal to follow. Numbers meant that people spilled throughout the building including the church sanctuary, to eat.
Every couple of months we begin with breakfast (free) before the morning service. Mrs M is usually to be found inviting passers by in or taking pastries to local shops. Couple of months ago a Sikh family had their business broken into: they were clearing up on a breakfast Sunday. We took food down to them, asked if we help and pray for them - they were thrilled.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The implication of relaxing on sofas, as others have implied, is that 'worship' is a spectacle/entertainment/or even boring lecture, but not an activity in which all participate. The contrast between a procession of robed clergy and a 'congregation' of passive spectators deepens the lay-clergy divide unacceptably. As does an unrobed 'worship leader' up front performing to a static congregation.
Oh yes, I agree with both parts of this. But I think that's totally independent of the seating and the consumption of coffee.
quote:
Of course most liturgy tends to contrast the 'active' participants with the majority of the congregation. But at least traditionally the latter will change posture from time to time (even if only standing to sing) and have some vocal input. And the presence of robed servers etc 'up front' stops it from being a clerical preserve.
Also a lot of people obviously feel engaged with a service like Evensong even when the choir is doing most of the singing and the clergy are doing most of the liturgy. Again, I don't see that drinking coffee makes any impact on the attention and engagement with that type of service, and clearly there are a lot of other types of service which are nothing like that extreme of interaction.
quote:
However I have to say I don't know the church in question (though my informant was reliable) and the reality of the situation might not have been quite as it appears.
Last week I attended a church where the seating was not only sofas, but the person next to me was playing on his phone the whole time and people seemed to wander in and out of the kitchen with drinks.
Personally, I'd rather be in Evensong. But.. well, I would hesitate to say that they were doing anything wrong and the person playing with the phone seemed to be remarkably engaged with what was going on.
My conclusion is that there are many different ways of doing things and many different kinds of people and some things that look absurd to one are perfectly normal and helpful to another.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The contrast between a procession of robed clergy and a 'congregation' of passive spectators deepens the lay-clergy divide unacceptably. As does an unrobed 'worship leader' up front performing to a static congregation.
If a worship leader is "performing" (and I know that some do), then they've got it wrong. They are supposed to engage with the congregation and - er - lead them in their worship. Possibly this is more of a problem in larger churches (especially those with a "theatre" layout) than smaller ones?
[ 13. September 2016, 07:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
engagement with that type of service, and Last week I attended a church where the seating was not only sofas, but the person next to me was playing on his phone the whole time and people seemed to wander in and out of the kitchen with drinks.
Personally, I'd rather be in Evensong. But.. well, I would hesitate to say that they were doing anything wrong and the person playing with the phone seemed to be remarkably engaged with what was going on.
That's extremely good-hearted of you, and you're right. But that would have driven me crazy with irritation, I'd have wanted to say, "For goodness' sake, can't you just sit still for five minutes"!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
That's extremely good-hearted of you, and you're right. But that would have driven me crazy with irritation, I'd have wanted to say, "For goodness' sake, can't you just sit still for five minutes"!
I long ago determined that wanting to say something to someone else about their behaviour in church is a road that only leads to one destination: turning into my mother. And nobody wants that.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I didn't say that I would have said anything. My wife and I would just have moaned and ranted about said person's behaviour, on our way home! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Mind you, both of us have said things in theatres and concerts to phone-users and chatterers who somehow seem to forget that they are not inaudible and invisible to people around them!
[ 13. September 2016, 08:03: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
To what extent are these valid criticisms, and to what extent are they 'there are two ways of doing this, our way and the wrong way'.
I don't know whether any other Shipmates have access to the Church Times, but the correspondence section - and some of the articles and a section where people can ask questions about liturgy and practice - seem sometimes to be driven by versions of 'I disapprove therefore I am'.
[ 13. September 2016, 08:04: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You're right - but could we have that in Latin, please?
[ 13. September 2016, 08:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
If a worship leader is "performing" (and I know that some do), then they've got it wrong. They are supposed to engage with the congregation and - er - lead them in their worship. Possibly this is more of a problem in larger churches (especially those with a "theatre" layout) than smaller ones?
This is where evangelicals and anglo-catholics have very similar problems, albeit just with different types of music. I've attended services of both where there's no involvement necessary from the congregation and one gets the impression that the service would carry on unchanged if no one actually turned up. Any such service is something I struggle with as one comes not only to be fed (spiritually) but to contribute to the life of the church, which is rather difficult if your only role is to sit still and be quiet. Even more so if you're instructed to leave in silence.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
You're right - but could we have that in Latin, please?
How about Improbo ergo sum? Or possibly rideo ergo sum? But I don't have much Latin these days.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I didn't say that I would have said anything. My wife and I would just have moaned and ranted about said person's behaviour, on our way home!
For sure, we rant and moan and laugh about other people's behaviour after church. Never to their face.
My mother has no shame and comes right out with it.
quote:
Mind you, both of us have said things in theatres and concerts to phone-users and chatterers who somehow seem to forget that they are not inaudible and invisible to people around them!
Yes, somehow a cinema is a different thing. I've no qualms about telling people to shut up or stop playing with their phone in a cinema. I wonder why that is..
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
How about Improbo ergo sum? Or possibly rideo ergo sum? But I don't have much Latin these days.
Discordo ergo sum has a certain ring to it but probably isn't correct.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I've attended services of both where there's no involvement necessary from the congregation and one gets the impression that the service would carry on unchanged if no one actually turned up. Any such service is something I struggle with as one comes not only to be fed (spiritually) but to contribute to the life of the church, which is rather difficult if your only role is to sit still and be quiet.
Of course, the philosophy behind the "Seeker Service" approach is that it's a "presentation" - i.e. it doesn't want to ask people who may not have yet come to faith to sing hymns and assent to prayers which they may not understand or believe.
I don't have a problem with that; but it shouldn't be a model for corporate worship, nor was it ever intended to be AFAIK.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
One man fussed that some hostesses bring too much food, some weeks you can make a generous breakfast out of it, but others said what's the harm if that's what someone wants to bring? His concern was two-fold, that the purpose of "coffee" was to mingle and chat, not sit down and eat.
Oh that more would sit down, even if it is only to sit and sip coffee whilst chatting. I find mingling oppressive, As do many AS* people. I'll happily sit and chat. Mingling excludes some people.
---
*AS = Asperger's Syndrome or Autism Spectrum, both are accurate
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The philosophy behind the "Seeker Service" approach is that it's a "presentation" - i.e. it doesn't want to ask people who may not have yet come to faith to sing hymns and assent to prayers which they may not understand or believe.
I've never heard the term used before. That wouldn't be so bad.
This was the kind of thing I had in mind: 2.5 hours of elaborately rolled Rs as Lamentations was sung indecipherably. Had it been marked as a concert, it might have been nice, but as a church service, I wouldn't be keen on going back.
Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on
:
My wife is diet-controlled hypoglycaemic and also has a condition which dries out her mouth and throat. Hence, as she sits at the organ in front of our small congregation there is a travel mug of honey-sweetened lemon tea handy so she can either maintain her blood glucose or prevent an embarrassing coughing fit. Without this simple remedy there would be some mornings when it would be difficult for her to participate in worship let alone accompany the singing.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The philosophy behind the "Seeker Service" approach is that it's a "presentation" - i.e. it doesn't want to ask people who may not have yet come to faith to sing hymns and assent to prayers which they may not understand or believe.
I've never heard the term used before. That wouldn't be so bad.
This was the kind of thing I had in mind: 2.5 hours of elaborately rolled Rs as Lamentations was sung indecipherably. Had it been marked as a concert, it might have been nice, but as a church service, I wouldn't be keen on going back.
Oh I dunno ... I'm an insomniac these days, and it might just work
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
One man fussed that some hostesses bring too much food, some weeks you can make a generous breakfast out of it, but others said what's the harm if that's what someone wants to bring? His concern was two-fold, that the purpose of "coffee" was to mingle and chat, not sit down and eat.
Oh that more would sit down, even if it is only to sit and sip coffee whilst chatting. I find mingling oppressive, As do many AS* people. I'll happily sit and chat. Mingling excludes some people.
---
*AS = Asperger's Syndrome or Autism Spectrum, both are accurate
Add in wearing powerul hearing aids which relay to me several conversations from around me. Some of these would have been better conducted in private or at least well away from the general throng. All intruded on the conversation I was trying to have but already found difficult.
For many years I was in charge of the roster for bringing food for the time. I was happy if people remembered even if it was a couple of family packs of biscuits. However one woman always brought a massive spread of homemade delicacies. Others were discouraged. Eventually , as people stopped bringing anything, I became unwilling to be up early on Sunday morning after I had remembered to check the roster, often late on Saturday evening. Depending on reliability of person rostered I would be up early making scones and dozens of mini muffins. We reverted to bulk buying of biscuits and wiping home made goodies entirely.
[ 15. September 2016, 12:29: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I tend to feel that coffee hospitality should not come with strings. If someone from the street shows up, it may be that they are hungry for something more than coffee and sweet rolls. It may be a perfect opportunity to enact Matt:25 values.
The "something in return" might be a sense of real fellowship with the neighbors.
(Poking nose in)
As someone who ran the coffee hour program in a church in an "urban war zone" ... I really couldn't agree with you more on this.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
One man fussed that some hostesses bring too much food, some weeks you can make a generous breakfast out of it, but others said what's the harm if that's what someone wants to bring? His concern was two-fold, that the purpose of "coffee" was to mingle and chat, not sit down and eat.
Oh that more would sit down, even if it is only to sit and sip coffee whilst chatting. I find mingling oppressive, As do many AS* people. I'll happily sit and chat. Mingling excludes some people.
---
*AS = Asperger's Syndrome or Autism Spectrum, both are accurate
So make room for people to mingle or sit down, as they wish. I think all the churches I've ever attended have done this as a matter of course, without even thinking about it.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
I have to say, having been with the same group of people before and after they had a gathering space that was large enough to contain some chairs and tables for "sit down/sit down and chat" as well as the food and coffee ... it made a large difference for a lot of people.
Those who were a bit wobbly on their feet or just felt like sitting down with their drinks and goodies could. People could sit by themselves or chat with others.
People who wanted to stand up and/or mingle did. Best of all worlds, really.
Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on
:
Because of this thread I've been noticing what my parish does, and we have coffee out pretty much all the time, I went to Morning Prayer/Eucharist on Tues., and the urns for coffee were out, before 8am, along with bagels for after the service. On Sunday there's coffee and receptions after the morning services, sweets and savories, and then a community supper in the evening after the Celtic service, and before Compline. It's all always free, and it helps the parish feel like a real community. It's impressive what we do, and I'm grateful for those who work to provide it.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
For about six months I lived in a Yorkshire village where the main service was 9am, I think - might have been 8.30 - and was followed by strong tea and as much bread and jam as you could eat.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Because of this thread I've been noticing what my parish does, and we have coffee out pretty much all the time, I went to Morning Prayer/Eucharist on Tues., and the urns for coffee were out, before 8am, along with bagels for after the service. On Sunday there's coffee and receptions after the morning services, sweets and savories, and then a community supper in the evening after the Celtic service, and before Compline. It's all always free, and it helps the parish feel like a real community. It's impressive what we do, and I'm grateful for those who work to provide it.
I hadn't thought about weekday services during this discussion. We have three services during the week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday mornings), and coffee is served after all of them. Wednesday includes home-made cake. Tuesday and Thursday used to have breakfast, but times have changed, and we've lost the people who used to provide that. Sundays we usually have quite lavish spreads (different people sign up to do that) after both services. Saturday evening is the only refreshment-less service of the week.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Just wondering ... I don't know where everyone is posting from, but it strikes me that, in general, the British churches seem to be offering coffee + cake/biscuits after church and that's about it; while those in North America/Southern Hemisphere seem to offer a great deal more (and more frequently).
Or is that a crass over-generalisation?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
We always have coffee (with cream/sugar), tea and lemonade on offer after Sunday services. Not infrequently the youth group is selling doughnuts, to support some project or another. And at least once a season there is a meal after the later service, kicking off something or another -- summer theater classes, Alpha, a missionary's visit, etc. But as a regular thing there is only beverages on offer, no food.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
A church I used to attend had a rule that no drinks were allowed into the main church at all. Ever. Under no circumstances.*
*Unless certain people wanted to.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0