Indeed. Plus, complaining to the Bishop is unlikely to achieve anything anyway.
I'm not really that worried what various churches get up to but it was a surprise to find no scripture readings in an ostensibly 'Bible-believing' church.
I think @KarlLB is onto something with his levels of conservatism.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox tend to be rather theologically conversative and very conservative liturgically.
So a certain rigidity in liturgical structure doesn't necessarily imply liberalism in theology. The same applies to certain strands of Anglo-Catholicism and particular RC parishes.
I'm sure the same applies to Lutheran churches and some sections of the Reformed side of things.
Perhaps I should alter my "fixed" to "minimum". Holding to one of a conservative liturgical practice or theology may *allow* for liberalisation in the other, but doesn't force it. There are of course also the Fundies in Frocks Forward in Faith types who are conservative in both.
If anyone does know of a congregation liberal in both theology and liturgy I'd be fascinated.
Would Quakers count? Also from what I know, that does describe Unitarians quite well.
I believe most MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination created to serve the LGBTQ+ community) congregations tend towards the liberal liturgy end of things.
I'm not sure I would describe Society (FinF) churches as uniformly conservative in terms of theology in general - not in the same way that their Evangelical equivalents are. I'd say that there's the same spectrum that you find in RC churches, in the UK at least. In my experience, the Orthodox in the UK tend to be significantly more rigidly conservative in terms of theology. I think there's often an assumption that Society churches are just con-evos in cassocks - this is very much NOT the case, having had extensive experience of both. Ocasionally you get the odd outlier that is like that but I'd say that they are very unusual, and tend to be errr more unusual socially too.
@betjemaniac I would welcome your thoughts here - would you say I'm right?
With the caveat that I’m currently in a mainstream rural benefice with a female priest, yes.
IME* with ConEvos you know what they believe and why. It’s fairly binary when it comes to headship. With the Society, it’s a holding group that encompasses any and all of:
Extreme Anglo-Papalists who for reasons best known to themselves are this side of the Tiber (and those reasons are themselves many and various, some more honourable than others**); faithful Anglicans who are open to women priests but genuinely don’t think the CofE can move on it without an Ecumenical Council that sees Rome etc do it too; faithful Anglicans who are not open to women priests; bluff ‘traditionalists’ who don’t have any reasoned objections beyond ‘didn’t used to be like this so I’m agin it’; congregations or clergy who have fallen out with their diocesan or rural dean and ran to their Provincial Episcopal Visitor to cock a snook while not being particularly bothered either way about priestly gender (really, these churches exist); and yes, probably some misogynists, though I genuinely haven’t met any in the last 20 years but they’re probably out there somewhere because it stands to reason I suppose.
What these last are NOT though are the norm or common, so it would be both easy and wrong to dismiss the members of the Society on those grounds. It’s just overwhelming mostly not true IME.
So many look at the Society and see a gin and lace stereotype, but there’s lots going on in that tribe.
Beyond the unifier of ‘no to women priests’ there’s little unity on why not, just on the ‘not’ - so you absolutely cannot read across from ‘Society church’ to any particular stance on anything else (social, cultural or theological or liturgical) there’s the whole gamut from Roman Rite through Prayer Book Catholic to Mud and Mattins Rural Evangelical and Fresh Expressions. But all Society. The first two are the majority probably though.
*sizeable and wide ranging, FWIW
**you can think the RC church is basically right on everything, but genuinely not accept papal authority for example.
Sorry, should have put Common Worship after Prayer Book Catholics but missed the edit window. Those three (with Roman Riters) would be the majority and overall these days for all everyone complains about the Roman Riters the Common Worshippers are I reckon the majority of the majority.
I would argue that misogyny is a practice more than a state of mind, and thus whatever psycho-theological gymnastics are performed to justify it the "Society" is inherently misogynistic.
I would argue that misogyny is a practice more than a state of mind, and thus whatever psycho-theological gymnastics are performed to justify it the "Society" is inherently misogynistic.
which is a point of view, but not an uncontested one.
See also 'I have theological beliefs, they are performing psycho-theological gymnastics, '
In my experience of the ones who are most like the kind that turn up on Midsomer Murders, the misogyny is generally the least concerning thing about them (which isn't a defence of the misogyny, but more a statement on what kind of, um, unusualness goes with that). My local parish priest is a Roman Riter who is also a regular guest/talking head on GBNews, and it's not to present an alternative point of view - that kind of mishegas is astonishingly rare (and apparently not a problem for +Ebbsfleet or whoever the PEV is).
In my experience of the ones who are most like the kind that turn up on Midsomer Murders, the misogyny is generally the least concerning thing about them (which isn't a defence of the misogyny, but more a statement on what kind of, um, unusualness goes with that). My local parish priest is a Roman Riter who is also a regular guest/talking head on GBNews, and it's not to present an alternative point of view - that kind of mishegas is astonishingly rare (and apparently not a problem for +Ebbsfleet or whoever the PEV is).
+Richborough I’d guess.
+Ebbsfleet is now for ConEvos. What was Ebbsfleet (trad catholics in the western part of the Canterbury province) is now +Oswestry.
Actually, I did wonder what if any legal repercussions or investigations the local diocese would face if a church under alternative episcopal oversight employed someone who committed a crime (in no way suggesting that my local parish priest has done such a thing, this genuinely is just hypothetical!)? I assume the local diocese still owns the building/land. Would it depend on the type of crime? The local diocese has, er, had a lot going on recently so it's not hard to imagine a situation where potentially both PEV and the local hierarchy face censure - even if just due to neglect rather than malice.
It's still totally the role of X diocese, of which a church under a PEV remains a part. The PEV arrangement just means that some functions of the diocesan bishop are delegated to the PEV (by the diocesan bishop). But not the legal or safeguarding stuff.
So tbh in the event of a hypothetical I'm not sure it would hit the PEV at all (unless it was somehow the PEV's doing), but would continue to blow up on the diocese as per any other parish church because that's where the responsibility will probably lie.
A quick look at the Oswestry website for safeguarding takes you to the relevant pages in each of the dioceses covered by +Oswestry rather than any suggestion that they do it themselves.
This is going way off topic. Any discussions about misogyny belong in Epiphanies and discussions on the definition of Liberal theology belong in Purgatory. I also remind you that derogatory descriptions of other traditions (Fundies in Frocks, Anglo-Papalist etc) are not suitable for Eccles
Would a discussion on what constitutes 'liberalism in liturgy' be permissible here?
@Nick Tamen suggested the Iona Community's 'Wild Goose' material as a possible example and @Pomona agreed.
My impression is that 'Wild Goose' style liturgies/material are more likely to be found in United Reformed congregations or other 'Free Churches' that incline towards the liberal end of the spectrum rather than Anglican churches.
Those 'liberal catholic' parishes I know tend to be fairly conservative liturgically.
It's still totally the role of X diocese, of which a church under a PEV remains a part. The PEV arrangement just means that some functions of the diocesan bishop are delegated to the PEV (by the diocesan bishop). But not the legal or safeguarding stuff.
So tbh in the event of a hypothetical I'm not sure it would hit the PEV at all (unless it was somehow the PEV's doing), but would continue to blow up on the diocese as per any other parish church because that's where the responsibility will probably lie.
A quick look at the Oswestry website for safeguarding takes you to the relevant pages in each of the dioceses covered by +Oswestry rather than any suggestion that they do it themselves.
I don't know much about flying bishops and alternative oversight but I am not so sure that it is either quite as 'total' as that might imply, or if so, whether it should be. The word 'oversight' means 'oversight'. I do not think an 'alternative bishop' or an 'alternative diocesan administration' can or should be allowed to duck all responsibility for everything else in those parishes that seek his (always 'he' and 'his' in these cases) oversight apart from whose hands get laid on whose heads at the convenient moment.
As parishes that elect for alternative oversight are supposed to continue to pay their parish share to their 'real' diocese, I would agree that they cannot exclude their 'real' diocese from intervening in anything to do with safeguarding, and are obliged to comply with the 'real' diocese's requirements and instructions. 'Alternative oversight' does not give them a convenient glory hole to hide in where the diocesan safeguarding officer cannot get at them. However, if their alternative bishop either became aware of a safeguarding issue, or should have done it he had kept his ears and eyes open, I would have thought it would be a very serious error on his part if he did not immediately contact the 'real' diocese, engage with it and fully co-operate with it. 'It's nothing to do with me' is not enough.
One quite interesting thought. If the parish in question was one which had refused on grounds of conscience to pay its parish share to its 'real' diocese, would the diocese be entitled to charge it £X per hour for everything it needed to do to sort some issue that arose, and bill it, whether the parish agreed or not? I would hope so. It strikes me as inherently unjust that the cost of providing safeguarding support to a disengaged parish should fall on all the other parishes that are doing their bit.
Would a discussion on what constitutes 'liberalism in liturgy' be permissible here?
@Nick Tamen suggested the Iona Community's 'Wild Goose' material as a possible example and @Pomona agreed.
My impression is that 'Wild Goose' style liturgies/material are more likely to be found in United Reformed congregations or other 'Free Churches' that incline towards the liberal end of the spectrum rather than Anglican churches.
Those 'liberal catholic' parishes I know tend to be fairly conservative liturgically.
There are Anglican parishes that are overwhelmingly just liberal rather than liberal catholic - liberal broad church I guess, but ime generally in cities and often places near/with a student community. Eg All Hallows Leeds.
Would a discussion on what constitutes 'liberalism in liturgy' be permissible here?
@Nick Tamen suggested the Iona Community's 'Wild Goose' material as a possible example and @Pomona agreed.
My impression is that 'Wild Goose' style liturgies/material are more likely to be found in United Reformed congregations or other 'Free Churches' that incline towards the liberal end of the spectrum rather than Anglican churches.
Those 'liberal catholic' parishes I know tend to be fairly conservative liturgically.
Again, though, this raises the question of what is meant by “liberal in liturgy.” As just two examples, I can see that description meaning:
1) Eschewing the liturgical forms of an authorized liturgy in favor either of home-grown liturgies, which may not bear much resemblance to authorized liturgies, or of no liturgical structure at all.
2) Adhering broadly to authorized liturgies, but with alterations that reflect liberal or progressive theology, such as use of feminine language for God, avoiding binary language in terms of gender, etc.
Until we all know what we’re talking about when we talk about “liberal in liturgy,” a discussion won’t get very far.
I'm thinking of the former, specifically eschewing (at least in theory) liturgical structure altogether.
Perhaps "liberal-conservative" is the wrong axis - "traditional-progressive" might be a better one. What I was getting at is that if I wander into a church and find a drum kit and bunch of vocal microphones at the front I can be pretty sure I'll find an Evangelical theology, whilst if a church calls itself affirming, progressive or liberal and is known for being progressive on Dead Horse issues, I can expect the organ to still be in use, traditional hymns and an organ voluntary.
What I was getting at was that churches seem to be able to change one or the other, or neither, but seldom both.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
Would a discussion on what constitutes 'liberalism in liturgy' be permissible here?
@Nick Tamen suggested the Iona Community's 'Wild Goose' material as a possible example and @Pomona agreed.
My impression is that 'Wild Goose' style liturgies/material are more likely to be found in United Reformed congregations or other 'Free Churches' that incline towards the liberal end of the spectrum rather than Anglican churches.
Those 'liberal catholic' parishes I know tend to be fairly conservative liturgically.
There are Anglican parishes that are overwhelmingly just liberal rather than liberal catholic - liberal broad church I guess, but ime generally in cities and often places near/with a student community. Eg All Hallows Leeds.
There are a couple here in Liverpool that are certainly liberal both theologically and liturgically. Neither would describe themselves as Catholic (big or small c), and they both grew from evangelical roots although at least one of them would disown that label. Neither of them insists on a weekly eucharist. 'Wild Goose' stuff would be common.
'Liberal Catholic' is often used as a synonym (or euphemism?) for middle of the road Anglicanism and can encompass fairly conservative views on everything provided the liturgy and ceremonial are moderate enough not to frighten the horses. More often, such churches incorporate a wide spectrum of views on most political and theological issues.
I would differentiate between 'liberal Catholic', where the former is the adjective to describe their interpretation of the tradition ; and 'Liberal catholic' where 'catholic' is more a description of liturgical style in which the liberal approach is clothed. IYSWIM.
Scratch the surface of a 'traditional' Anglo-catholic congregation and you will find every perspective on every issue. Supporters of women priests for example, as well as all the other Dead-horse shibboleths, will be found in the most extremely Forward-in-Faith churches.
Pedantic PS: there is officially no 'alternative episcopal oversight' in the C of E. The term is 'extended'.
I'm thinking of the former, specifically eschewing (at least in theory) liturgical structure altogether.
Perhaps "liberal-conservative" is the wrong axis - "traditional-progressive" might be a better one. What I was getting at is that if I wander into a church and find a drum kit and bunch of vocal microphones at the front I can be pretty sure I'll find an Evangelical theology, whilst if a church calls itself affirming, progressive or liberal and is known for being progressive on Dead Horse issues, I can expect the organ to still be in use, traditional hymns and an organ voluntary.
What I was getting at was that churches seem to be able to change one or the other, or neither, but seldom both.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
The kind of Anglican church I'm thinking of would be much more inclined to have a small group of musicians based mostly on piano and acoustic guitar, and for some reason almost always a flute. Mixture of traditional hymns and modern(ish) hymns but not anything resembling modern worship music à la Hillsong et al. Maybe a small choir but definitely no robes and no organ voluntary. Think closer to a folk mass, albeit generally with no singing nuns (although by no means guaranteed!). Almost certainly at least one regular Taizé service.
Also - interested to hear how liturgy plays out in multi-denomination arrangements eg a combined Anglican and Methodist parish church, as I suspect it generally looks a lot more like the above than anything else.
I'm thinking of the former, specifically eschewing (at least in theory) liturgical structure altogether.
Perhaps "liberal-conservative" is the wrong axis - "traditional-progressive" might be a better one. What I was getting at is that if I wander into a church and find a drum kit and bunch of vocal microphones at the front I can be pretty sure I'll find an Evangelical theology, whilst if a church calls itself affirming, progressive or liberal and is known for being progressive on Dead Horse issues, I can expect the organ to still be in use, traditional hymns and an organ voluntary.
Thanks for the clarification. And yes, traditional-progressive may be a better axis.
And I wonder if something like “worship style” or “worship and musical styles” is a more apt descriptor than “liturgical.” It’s quite possible to go without organs and organ voluntaries and traditional hymns and still be very liturgical. I’ve certainly encountered very liturgical services with guitars and contemporary hymns.
What I was getting at was that churches seem to be able to change one or the other, or neither, but seldom both.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
I think it’s an interesting question, even if the framing is an artifact of what you describe as the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s, a framework that I’m not sure maps neatly onto my American religious experiences and observations.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
I think it might have ended up being coded that way, and thus perpetuates itself (not to mention that you generally need a congregation of particular size before a drum kit + multiple vocals become viable).
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
I think it might have ended up being coded that way, and thus perpetuates itself (not to mention that you generally need a congregation of particular size before a drum kit + multiple vocals become viable).
It's also perpetuated by the way the theology espoused in modern worship songs tends to be charismatic evangelical. It would be quite hard to use the modern worship song corpus while having a universalist or even non-PSA outlook, and equally if one does not experience faith emotionally.
We had "As the deer" last week.. I don't know if other people can sing "I love You more than any other" and "You alone are the real joy-giver and the apple of my eye" or indeed "only you can satisfy" without their fingers crossed but I know I can't.
Sometimes I can get by with some subtle alterations of words but other times I just have to stop singing. Not that traditional hymnody is completely free of these problems, to be fair.
I find it hard to conceive of a meaningful schema that groups Iona Community / Wild Goose liturgically with evangelical worship styles. Certainly the book I have on my shelf, Eggs and Ashes, provides more words and rubrics than most "traditional" liturgies, certainly more than the Book of Common Order offers, and much more than found in my experience of evangelical worship.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
I think it might have ended up being coded that way, and thus perpetuates itself (not to mention that you generally need a congregation of particular size before a drum kit + multiple vocals become viable).
It's also perpetuated by the way the theology espoused in modern worship songs tends to be charismatic evangelical. It would be quite hard to use the modern worship song corpus while having a universalist or even non-PSA outlook, and equally if one does not experience faith emotionally.
But that's a chicken and egg style situation isn't it; those modern worship songs had to be written at some point, and on the face of it there is no reason why the accoutrements of that style couldn't have been used in different ways [*]. Although perhaps the fact that it tracks contemporary music at a distance means that it's also coded to be emotional.
[*] There's a parallel corpus of 'modern Roman Catholic worship'
I don't often attend services with contemporary 'worship songs' these days - and some Orthodox would never do so.
But when I have done I find songs like 'As the deer...' fairly toe-curling but somehow I'm able to switch off.
Whatever the 'style' all church services are 'designed' to elicit some kind of response, but I draw the line at those where the 'designs' are overly designed as it were ... as some worship songs undoubtedly are.
I can be an emotional person and some hymns and tunes do 'get' to me. I'm a sucker for Welsh hymn tunes in the minor key.
At any rate I've found some of the posts here very helpful in terms of identifying some of the 'tribal' differences.
For instance, most liberal Anglicans I've met tend to come from the moderate to high-ish end of the spectrum. Sure, I've attended some 'broad church' services in my time but for whatever reason I'm more familiar with the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic ends rather than the 'bit in the middle.'
I was on Iona recently but attended the Orthodox Liturgy on the Sunday rather than the Wild Goose-y service in the Abbey.
An American non-denominational pastor who was part of our group told me it was 'very wordy.'
I think I'd find the piano, guitar and flute thing quite pleasant although I do find some more liberally theological hymnody quite irritating. Singing to the Almighty telling him how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the dispossessed.
Well yes. So bloody well do something about it then ...
I must admit my heart sinks these days when I see drum kits and trailing wires and mics, particularly inside ancient buildings.
But I'd happily attend a rock gig in a secular context.
I'm not sure I'm the only one.
But this isn't about me and my worship preferences. Any form of worship 'style' can have pitfalls and drawbacks.
However we cut it, though, all church services/meetings have some form of liturgical structure, even if it's a very basic one.
. . . I do find some more liberally theological hymnody quite irritating. Singing to the Almighty telling him how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the dispossessed.
What would be an example of such “liberally theological hymnody”?
However we cut it, though, all church services/meetings have some form of liturgical structure, even if it's a very basic one.
I know this is a common claim, but I’ll push back just a little. I’ll agree that all church services/meetings have structure, although the structure can sometimes be challenging to parse out. But I’m not sure all such structures can be called “liturgy,” at least not without reducing the meaning of “liturgy” to be synonymous with structure. Liturgy is, I think, more than traditional or predictable structure.
And at the least, I think it verges on disrespectful to tell people in traditions other than our own that they really do have liturgies when they say they do not.
. . . I do find some more liberally theological hymnody quite irritating. Singing to the Almighty telling him how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the dispossessed.
What would be an example of such “liberally theological hymnody”?
Fred Kaan and John Bell ar3 two names which spring to mind
I find it hard to conceive of a meaningful schema that groups Iona Community / Wild Goose liturgically with evangelical worship styles. Certainly the book I have on my shelf, Eggs and Ashes, provides more words and rubrics than most "traditional" liturgies, certainly more than the Book of Common Order offers, and much more than found in my experience of evangelical worship.
I would agree. I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to do so.
Funnily enough, I'm involved in some reimagining worship workshops with my current church and we're doing music tomorrow. We have been asked to bring "modern Christian music" along and I know - fear what our resident charismatics will bring along. I intend to contribute some Wild Goose as a possible Third Way. Fortunately it now appears that their material falls under the CCLI - it was not always thus!
. . . I do find some more liberally theological hymnody quite irritating. Singing to the Almighty telling him how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the dispossessed.
What would be an example of such “liberally theological hymnody”?
Fred Kaan and John Bell ar3 two names which spring to mind
Perhaps I should have been more specific. When I asked for “an example” I meant “can you cite a specific hymn or quote specific hymn lyrics that would be an example?”
I can think of lyrics by Kaan and Bell that I think verge on “preachy,” but I can’t think of any lyrics by either of them that I would describe as “telling [the Almighty] how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the disposed.” I can think of lyrics by both of them that confess ways in which we do not live as God intends and that pray for a change of heart, but I don’t see that as being the same thing, nor do I see it as being substantively different from much of the content of the psalms or the prophets. “Create in me a clean heart,” etc.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
I think it might have ended up being coded that way, and thus perpetuates itself (not to mention that you generally need a congregation of particular size before a drum kit + multiple vocals become viable).
It's also perpetuated by the way the theology espoused in modern worship songs tends to be charismatic evangelical. It would be quite hard to use the modern worship song corpus while having a universalist or even non-PSA outlook, and equally if one does not experience faith emotionally.
But that's a chicken and egg style situation isn't it; those modern worship songs had to be written at some point, and on the face of it there is no reason why the accoutrements of that style couldn't have been used in different ways [*]. Although perhaps the fact that it tracks contemporary music at a distance means that it's also coded to be emotional.
[*] There's a parallel corpus of 'modern Roman Catholic worship'
Funny you should say that. Those old enough to remember Garth Hewitt may be interested to know he brought out a book of songs pretty much in that style called, if memory serves Walk the Talk. It sank like a stone, as had the Dance on Injustice songbook which came out a few years earlier.
That was over thirty years ago. Since then the Charismatic Evangelicals have pretty much had a monopoly on that style of music.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
I think it might have ended up being coded that way, and thus perpetuates itself (not to mention that you generally need a congregation of particular size before a drum kit + multiple vocals become viable).
It's also perpetuated by the way the theology espoused in modern worship songs tends to be charismatic evangelical. It would be quite hard to use the modern worship song corpus while having a universalist or even non-PSA outlook, and equally if one does not experience faith emotionally.
But that's a chicken and egg style situation isn't it; those modern worship songs had to be written at some point, and on the face of it there is no reason why the accoutrements of that style couldn't have been used in different ways [*]. Although perhaps the fact that it tracks contemporary music at a distance means that it's also coded to be emotional.
[*] There's a parallel corpus of 'modern Roman Catholic worship'
Funny you should say that. Those old enough to remember Garth Hewitt may be interested to know he brought out a book of songs pretty much in that style called, if memory serves Walk the Talk. It sank like a stone, as had the Dance on Injustice songbook which came out a few years earlier.
Well, that tends to indicate lack of demand rather than lack of supply.
That was over thirty years ago. Since then the Charismatic Evangelicals have pretty much had a monopoly on that style of music.
That's not entirely true albeit the Charismatic Evangelical outfits like Hillsongs and Bethel dominate sales figures, there's plenty of ConEvo and - as I said - mostly conservative RC stuff that's in a similar vein.
Personally, I prefer much of the contemporary pieces coming out of GIA publications in Chicago and the Oregon Catholic Press (OCP) out of Portland, OR.
A while ago @Gamma Gamaliel made a comment about Lutheran liturgies. I was going to write a detailed reply, but this article says it much better than me. A few key points: Lutheran hymns are more for congregational singing. We like choirs. But our congregations love to sing--usually in four part harmonies. Two, we borrow a lot from other traditions and make some adjustments to fit our theology. Three. It has been my experience Lutherans tend to publish a major hymnal about every 20 years. Even now, my Synod is working on a new hymnal. Hope it comes out before I go. Four. Seems like our more recent hymnals have been including hymns from other cultures. Latin, African, Asain comes to mind. I know the congregation I attend loves to take on new hymns.
Speaking of my congregation, we tend to change our liturgy to a different setting about every six months. Our favorite is the Trinity Mass, which was written by a former member of the congregation who is an accomplished musician in his own right. Right now, we are using Santo: A Bilingual Communion Rite.
We are in the middle of a pastoral transition, so it remains to be seen how the new pastor will tweak our style.
For the past year, I have been supply preaching at a community church. It has allowed me to become a little freer in developing a service. I borrow quite a bit from UCC and Methodist sources. The congregation seems to like what I have been using.
Thanks @Gramps49. I'll look up those Lutheran links. I met a lovely Lutheran pastor from the US on Iona recently.
@Nick Tamen - I can't find the particular song I had in mind just now but they sing it at my sister in law's and brother in law's Methodist church and it drives them barmy.
Sure, I get the parallels from the Psalms and the Prophets but even so, it sounds like virtue-signalling to me in the same way as some charismatic evangelical songs sound triumphalist.
At the same time, though, we do need reminders of these scriptural injunctions from the Prophets, the Psalms and the NT - but how to 'shape' them into our worship without it becoming 'preachy' is a moot point.
On whether it's cheeky and disrespectful to accuse other groups of having 'liturgies' when they don't... I can see what you are getting at and the distinction between liturgy and structure.
Yet I remain unrepentant, particularly when some of these groups take a pride in ostensibly not having any liturgy when what they do is equally as predictable as anything to be found in more sacramental circles.
At the same time, though, we do need reminders of these scriptural injunctions from the Prophets, the Psalms and the NT - but how to 'shape' them into our worship without it becoming 'preachy' is a moot point.
How is it a moot point? It seems like a very pertinent question to me. It’s one I know I and other hymn writers struggle with and try very hard to take care with.
I had no idea it might not mean the same in US English or other forms.
On the unprogrammed Quaker thing ... well there is a format. The meeting generally lasts an hour.
There is also a table with the Bible and 'Notes and Queries' on it if I remember rightly from occasional visits.
I also understand there are protocols of practice for 'spoken ministry' when it's given.
Ok, that may not amount to a 'liturgy' as such but it is a format and structure that has been developed - however minimally- within that particular faith community.
I could be cheeky and say that no mention of God seems to have become something of a fixture in some Meetings ...
But I've already been told off for disrespectfulness.
As it happens, I do hold Quakers in high regard for all my being on a different page as it were.
. . . I do find some more liberally theological hymnody quite irritating. Singing to the Almighty telling him how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the dispossessed.
What would be an example of such “liberally theological hymnody”?
Fred Kaan and John Bell ar3 two names which spring to mind
The latter (obviously really as he is contemporary) has dated less than the former. My head nods in agreement with nearly everything they have written; my heart sometimes feels 'got at'. Virtue signalling and liturgy don's go together very well.
UK English - a moot point is one which is open to discussion.
AhY, thank you. Interesting; it means exactly the opposite in the US. A moot point is a point or discussion that has become irrelevant.
Borrowing from your background. A moot court, is a practice court where a case can be debated, is it not? Of course, you could claim the court is irrelevant.
UK English - a moot point is one which is open to discussion.
AhY, thank you. Interesting; it means exactly the opposite in the US. A moot point is a point or discussion that has become irrelevant.
Borrowing from your background. A moot court, is a practice court where a case can be debated, is it not? Of course, you could claim the court is irrelevant.
Yes, a moot court is a simulated appellate oral argument. In law school, moot courts are done to learn the skills of oral argument. In a law practice, they’re done to prepare for an actual oral argument.
One does not generally argue moot points in a moot court. As the article to which @chrisstiles linked describes, moot in the term moot court and moot in the term moot point do not mean the same thing in American English or in American legal usage.
Perhaps oversharing. I went to a Saturday morning Mass in Lightning Ridge (an outback town in New South Wales). I have my preferences, and musically this wasn't it, but one of the songs hit me so hard I started to cry. Then the sermon repeated the theme and I started again. They honestly spoke to a struggle I was going through.
In May I was at a Solemn Vespers and Benediction at Armidale Cathedral (more my thing, but not offered anywhere near me) and the same thing.
I am moved by certain worship styles but sometimes something happens. That experience in outback NSW taught me you never know when you may be "moved".
Comments
With the caveat that I’m currently in a mainstream rural benefice with a female priest, yes.
IME* with ConEvos you know what they believe and why. It’s fairly binary when it comes to headship. With the Society, it’s a holding group that encompasses any and all of:
Extreme Anglo-Papalists who for reasons best known to themselves are this side of the Tiber (and those reasons are themselves many and various, some more honourable than others**); faithful Anglicans who are open to women priests but genuinely don’t think the CofE can move on it without an Ecumenical Council that sees Rome etc do it too; faithful Anglicans who are not open to women priests; bluff ‘traditionalists’ who don’t have any reasoned objections beyond ‘didn’t used to be like this so I’m agin it’; congregations or clergy who have fallen out with their diocesan or rural dean and ran to their Provincial Episcopal Visitor to cock a snook while not being particularly bothered either way about priestly gender (really, these churches exist); and yes, probably some misogynists, though I genuinely haven’t met any in the last 20 years but they’re probably out there somewhere because it stands to reason I suppose.
What these last are NOT though are the norm or common, so it would be both easy and wrong to dismiss the members of the Society on those grounds. It’s just overwhelming mostly not true IME.
So many look at the Society and see a gin and lace stereotype, but there’s lots going on in that tribe.
Beyond the unifier of ‘no to women priests’ there’s little unity on why not, just on the ‘not’ - so you absolutely cannot read across from ‘Society church’ to any particular stance on anything else (social, cultural or theological or liturgical) there’s the whole gamut from Roman Rite through Prayer Book Catholic to Mud and Mattins Rural Evangelical and Fresh Expressions. But all Society. The first two are the majority probably though.
*sizeable and wide ranging, FWIW
**you can think the RC church is basically right on everything, but genuinely not accept papal authority for example.
which is a point of view, but not an uncontested one.
See also 'I have theological beliefs, they are performing psycho-theological gymnastics, '
Still, I note this is not Epiphanies...
+Richborough I’d guess.
+Ebbsfleet is now for ConEvos. What was Ebbsfleet (trad catholics in the western part of the Canterbury province) is now +Oswestry.
Actually, I did wonder what if any legal repercussions or investigations the local diocese would face if a church under alternative episcopal oversight employed someone who committed a crime (in no way suggesting that my local parish priest has done such a thing, this genuinely is just hypothetical!)? I assume the local diocese still owns the building/land. Would it depend on the type of crime? The local diocese has, er, had a lot going on recently so it's not hard to imagine a situation where potentially both PEV and the local hierarchy face censure - even if just due to neglect rather than malice.
So tbh in the event of a hypothetical I'm not sure it would hit the PEV at all (unless it was somehow the PEV's doing), but would continue to blow up on the diocese as per any other parish church because that's where the responsibility will probably lie.
A quick look at the Oswestry website for safeguarding takes you to the relevant pages in each of the dioceses covered by +Oswestry rather than any suggestion that they do it themselves.
This is going way off topic. Any discussions about misogyny belong in Epiphanies and discussions on the definition of Liberal theology belong in Purgatory. I also remind you that derogatory descriptions of other traditions (Fundies in Frocks, Anglo-Papalist etc) are not suitable for Eccles
Spike
Ecclesiantics Host
@Nick Tamen suggested the Iona Community's 'Wild Goose' material as a possible example and @Pomona agreed.
My impression is that 'Wild Goose' style liturgies/material are more likely to be found in United Reformed congregations or other 'Free Churches' that incline towards the liberal end of the spectrum rather than Anglican churches.
Those 'liberal catholic' parishes I know tend to be fairly conservative liturgically.
As parishes that elect for alternative oversight are supposed to continue to pay their parish share to their 'real' diocese, I would agree that they cannot exclude their 'real' diocese from intervening in anything to do with safeguarding, and are obliged to comply with the 'real' diocese's requirements and instructions. 'Alternative oversight' does not give them a convenient glory hole to hide in where the diocesan safeguarding officer cannot get at them. However, if their alternative bishop either became aware of a safeguarding issue, or should have done it he had kept his ears and eyes open, I would have thought it would be a very serious error on his part if he did not immediately contact the 'real' diocese, engage with it and fully co-operate with it. 'It's nothing to do with me' is not enough.
One quite interesting thought. If the parish in question was one which had refused on grounds of conscience to pay its parish share to its 'real' diocese, would the diocese be entitled to charge it £X per hour for everything it needed to do to sort some issue that arose, and bill it, whether the parish agreed or not? I would hope so. It strikes me as inherently unjust that the cost of providing safeguarding support to a disengaged parish should fall on all the other parishes that are doing their bit.
There are Anglican parishes that are overwhelmingly just liberal rather than liberal catholic - liberal broad church I guess, but ime generally in cities and often places near/with a student community. Eg All Hallows Leeds.
1) Eschewing the liturgical forms of an authorized liturgy in favor either of home-grown liturgies, which may not bear much resemblance to authorized liturgies, or of no liturgical structure at all.
2) Adhering broadly to authorized liturgies, but with alterations that reflect liberal or progressive theology, such as use of feminine language for God, avoiding binary language in terms of gender, etc.
Until we all know what we’re talking about when we talk about “liberal in liturgy,” a discussion won’t get very far.
Perhaps "liberal-conservative" is the wrong axis - "traditional-progressive" might be a better one. What I was getting at is that if I wander into a church and find a drum kit and bunch of vocal microphones at the front I can be pretty sure I'll find an Evangelical theology, whilst if a church calls itself affirming, progressive or liberal and is known for being progressive on Dead Horse issues, I can expect the organ to still be in use, traditional hymns and an organ voluntary.
What I was getting at was that churches seem to be able to change one or the other, or neither, but seldom both.
It may simply be an artefact of the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s - early 80s and my hypothesis void.
There are a couple here in Liverpool that are certainly liberal both theologically and liturgically. Neither would describe themselves as Catholic (big or small c), and they both grew from evangelical roots although at least one of them would disown that label. Neither of them insists on a weekly eucharist. 'Wild Goose' stuff would be common.
'Liberal Catholic' is often used as a synonym (or euphemism?) for middle of the road Anglicanism and can encompass fairly conservative views on everything provided the liturgy and ceremonial are moderate enough not to frighten the horses. More often, such churches incorporate a wide spectrum of views on most political and theological issues.
I would differentiate between 'liberal Catholic', where the former is the adjective to describe their interpretation of the tradition ; and 'Liberal catholic' where 'catholic' is more a description of liturgical style in which the liberal approach is clothed. IYSWIM.
Scratch the surface of a 'traditional' Anglo-catholic congregation and you will find every perspective on every issue. Supporters of women priests for example, as well as all the other Dead-horse shibboleths, will be found in the most extremely Forward-in-Faith churches.
Pedantic PS: there is officially no 'alternative episcopal oversight' in the C of E. The term is 'extended'.
The kind of Anglican church I'm thinking of would be much more inclined to have a small group of musicians based mostly on piano and acoustic guitar, and for some reason almost always a flute. Mixture of traditional hymns and modern(ish) hymns but not anything resembling modern worship music à la Hillsong et al. Maybe a small choir but definitely no robes and no organ voluntary. Think closer to a folk mass, albeit generally with no singing nuns (although by no means guaranteed!). Almost certainly at least one regular Taizé service.
And I wonder if something like “worship style” or “worship and musical styles” is a more apt descriptor than “liturgical.” It’s quite possible to go without organs and organ voluntaries and traditional hymns and still be very liturgical. I’ve certainly encountered very liturgical services with guitars and contemporary hymns.
I think it’s an interesting question, even if the framing is an artifact of what you describe as the Charismatic-Evangelical marriage of the late 70s, a framework that I’m not sure maps neatly onto my American religious experiences and observations.
I think it might have ended up being coded that way, and thus perpetuates itself (not to mention that you generally need a congregation of particular size before a drum kit + multiple vocals become viable).
It's also perpetuated by the way the theology espoused in modern worship songs tends to be charismatic evangelical. It would be quite hard to use the modern worship song corpus while having a universalist or even non-PSA outlook, and equally if one does not experience faith emotionally.
We had "As the deer" last week.. I don't know if other people can sing "I love You more than any other" and "You alone are the real joy-giver and the apple of my eye" or indeed "only you can satisfy" without their fingers crossed but I know I can't.
Sometimes I can get by with some subtle alterations of words but other times I just have to stop singing. Not that traditional hymnody is completely free of these problems, to be fair.
But that's a chicken and egg style situation isn't it; those modern worship songs had to be written at some point, and on the face of it there is no reason why the accoutrements of that style couldn't have been used in different ways [*]. Although perhaps the fact that it tracks contemporary music at a distance means that it's also coded to be emotional.
[*] There's a parallel corpus of 'modern Roman Catholic worship'
But when I have done I find songs like 'As the deer...' fairly toe-curling but somehow I'm able to switch off.
Whatever the 'style' all church services are 'designed' to elicit some kind of response, but I draw the line at those where the 'designs' are overly designed as it were ... as some worship songs undoubtedly are.
I can be an emotional person and some hymns and tunes do 'get' to me. I'm a sucker for Welsh hymn tunes in the minor key.
At any rate I've found some of the posts here very helpful in terms of identifying some of the 'tribal' differences.
For instance, most liberal Anglicans I've met tend to come from the moderate to high-ish end of the spectrum. Sure, I've attended some 'broad church' services in my time but for whatever reason I'm more familiar with the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic ends rather than the 'bit in the middle.'
I was on Iona recently but attended the Orthodox Liturgy on the Sunday rather than the Wild Goose-y service in the Abbey.
An American non-denominational pastor who was part of our group told me it was 'very wordy.'
I think I'd find the piano, guitar and flute thing quite pleasant although I do find some more liberally theological hymnody quite irritating. Singing to the Almighty telling him how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the dispossessed.
Well yes. So bloody well do something about it then ...
I must admit my heart sinks these days when I see drum kits and trailing wires and mics, particularly inside ancient buildings.
But I'd happily attend a rock gig in a secular context.
I'm not sure I'm the only one.
But this isn't about me and my worship preferences. Any form of worship 'style' can have pitfalls and drawbacks.
However we cut it, though, all church services/meetings have some form of liturgical structure, even if it's a very basic one.
I know this is a common claim, but I’ll push back just a little. I’ll agree that all church services/meetings have structure, although the structure can sometimes be challenging to parse out. But I’m not sure all such structures can be called “liturgy,” at least not without reducing the meaning of “liturgy” to be synonymous with structure. Liturgy is, I think, more than traditional or predictable structure.
And at the least, I think it verges on disrespectful to tell people in traditions other than our own that they really do have liturgies when they say they do not.
Fred Kaan and John Bell ar3 two names which spring to mind
I would agree. I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to do so.
Funnily enough, I'm involved in some reimagining worship workshops with my current church and we're doing music tomorrow. We have been asked to bring "modern Christian music" along and I know - fear what our resident charismatics will bring along. I intend to contribute some Wild Goose as a possible Third Way. Fortunately it now appears that their material falls under the CCLI - it was not always thus!
I can think of lyrics by Kaan and Bell that I think verge on “preachy,” but I can’t think of any lyrics by either of them that I would describe as “telling [the Almighty] how awfully privileged and middle-class we are and how neglectful we are of the poor and the disposed.” I can think of lyrics by both of them that confess ways in which we do not live as God intends and that pray for a change of heart, but I don’t see that as being the same thing, nor do I see it as being substantively different from much of the content of the psalms or the prophets. “Create in me a clean heart,” etc.
Others’ mileage may differ.
Funny you should say that. Those old enough to remember Garth Hewitt may be interested to know he brought out a book of songs pretty much in that style called, if memory serves Walk the Talk. It sank like a stone, as had the Dance on Injustice songbook which came out a few years earlier.
That was over thirty years ago. Since then the Charismatic Evangelicals have pretty much had a monopoly on that style of music.
Well, that tends to indicate lack of demand rather than lack of supply.
That's not entirely true albeit the Charismatic Evangelical outfits like Hillsongs and Bethel dominate sales figures, there's plenty of ConEvo and - as I said - mostly conservative RC stuff that's in a similar vein.
A while ago @Gamma Gamaliel made a comment about Lutheran liturgies. I was going to write a detailed reply, but this article says it much better than me. A few key points: Lutheran hymns are more for congregational singing. We like choirs. But our congregations love to sing--usually in four part harmonies. Two, we borrow a lot from other traditions and make some adjustments to fit our theology. Three. It has been my experience Lutherans tend to publish a major hymnal about every 20 years. Even now, my Synod is working on a new hymnal. Hope it comes out before I go. Four. Seems like our more recent hymnals have been including hymns from other cultures. Latin, African, Asain comes to mind. I know the congregation I attend loves to take on new hymns.
Speaking of my congregation, we tend to change our liturgy to a different setting about every six months. Our favorite is the Trinity Mass, which was written by a former member of the congregation who is an accomplished musician in his own right. Right now, we are using Santo: A Bilingual Communion Rite.
We are in the middle of a pastoral transition, so it remains to be seen how the new pastor will tweak our style.
For the past year, I have been supply preaching at a community church. It has allowed me to become a little freer in developing a service. I borrow quite a bit from UCC and Methodist sources. The congregation seems to like what I have been using.
@Nick Tamen - I can't find the particular song I had in mind just now but they sing it at my sister in law's and brother in law's Methodist church and it drives them barmy.
Sure, I get the parallels from the Psalms and the Prophets but even so, it sounds like virtue-signalling to me in the same way as some charismatic evangelical songs sound triumphalist.
At the same time, though, we do need reminders of these scriptural injunctions from the Prophets, the Psalms and the NT - but how to 'shape' them into our worship without it becoming 'preachy' is a moot point.
On whether it's cheeky and disrespectful to accuse other groups of having 'liturgies' when they don't... I can see what you are getting at and the distinction between liturgy and structure.
Yet I remain unrepentant, particularly when some of these groups take a pride in ostensibly not having any liturgy when what they do is equally as predictable as anything to be found in more sacramental circles.
I had no idea it might not mean the same in US English or other forms.
On the unprogrammed Quaker thing ... well there is a format. The meeting generally lasts an hour.
There is also a table with the Bible and 'Notes and Queries' on it if I remember rightly from occasional visits.
I also understand there are protocols of practice for 'spoken ministry' when it's given.
Ok, that may not amount to a 'liturgy' as such but it is a format and structure that has been developed - however minimally- within that particular faith community.
I could be cheeky and say that no mention of God seems to have become something of a fixture in some Meetings ...
But I've already been told off for disrespectfulness.
As it happens, I do hold Quakers in high regard for all my being on a different page as it were.
In UK English it can mean either.
There's a brief discussion of the history of the two usages here:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/jan/16/mind-your-language-moot-point
The latter (obviously really as he is contemporary) has dated less than the former. My head nods in agreement with nearly everything they have written; my heart sometimes feels 'got at'. Virtue signalling and liturgy don's go together very well.
Borrowing from your background. A moot court, is a practice court where a case can be debated, is it not? Of course, you could claim the court is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, I wonder whether @Heavenlyannie has highlighted a change in meaning over here in the UK?
I've generally understood it in the way @KarlLB outlined it, hence my use of the term to express that.
I have heard it used the opposite way here, come to think on't, but have either ignored it or assumed people had misunderstood it.
Anyway....
Back to the liturgy thing ... I'm wondering about starting a new thread about 'head and heart'.
People are 'moved' by different things. What might 'get' me in a service may leave someone else cold, or vice-versa.
This makes it difficult to create some kind of head/heart equilibrium or symbiosis.
Should we be aiming at that in whichever way we can within our various traditions?
I'll give it some thought and start a new thread once I've let it percolate a bit.
One does not generally argue moot points in a moot court. As the article to which @chrisstiles linked describes, moot in the term moot court and moot in the term moot point do not mean the same thing in American English or in American legal usage.
In May I was at a Solemn Vespers and Benediction at Armidale Cathedral (more my thing, but not offered anywhere near me) and the same thing.
I am moved by certain worship styles but sometimes something happens. That experience in outback NSW taught me you never know when you may be "moved".
The sort of thing I'd like to explore in as eirenic a spirit as possible on the new thread when I start it.
Love and peace to all.