@ExclamationMark I think I ran into the charismatic movement before it grew up. I think the Charismatic Movement and me were both in the obnoxious teenager stage in the early 1980s. I had a run in with a charismatic clergyman that nearly ensured that I did not go anywhere near a church again. As it was I settled for not going anywhere near a church until he moved on.
PDR - why does the bloke want you to do the stuff which your host church already does? That sounds daft.
Words like accessibility and approachability tend to figure heavily in such conversations, but I think that folks who advocate exclusively for that approach are missing the fact that not everyone finds that style of worship accessible, approachable, or even very worshipful. However, I suspect it is more a case of that is what the BOM sees as the most successful, and therefore the default, type of new plant. On the whole, though, I find it too noisy, busy and horizontal in focus to be completely satisfactory. Statistically it is highly unlikely that I am the only one who thinks that way among the 70,000 people within the catchment area of the plant I am involved with.
I think I ran into the charismatic movement before it grew up. I think the Charismatic Movement and me were both in the obnoxious teenager stage in the early 1980s.
Perhaps, but the charismatic was movement very active during the 70s (think Fountain Trust) and was already beginning in the late 1950s. I think though that many of the "New Church" movements arose during the mid-70s. I also know personally of one CofE church which was very much into charismatic "discipling" around 1977=8 - there were others.
I think you may be right - it was the guy seeming to advocate 'planting what already exists into the context _in which_ it already exists' bit which had me scratching my head. So vive la difference!
Well I am a diocesan advisor in the Church of England and I wish some parishes in the diocese would take my advice! Like that they would include intercessions in their services, have more than one Bible reading, learn how to use liturgy in a charismatic church, get their worship leaders some training and authorisation.....
It does begin to look a bit like some centralised control is going on
There is nothing wrong with centralised control as long as I am the one in control. You know it is for your own good.
I think I ran into the charismatic movement before it grew up. I think the Charismatic Movement and me were both in the obnoxious teenager stage in the early 1980s.
Perhaps, but the charismatic was movement very active during the 70s (think Fountain Trust) and was already beginning in the late 1950s. I think though that many of the "New Church" movements arose during the mid-70s. I also know personally of one CofE church which was very much into charismatic "discipling" around 1977=8 - there were others.
It took another twenty years to get out my way possibly due to the limited number of bridges over the Trent. The Reformation seems to have had the same problems given how many of the local clergy got into trouble for saying Mass on the side during the Elizabethan era.
Well I am a diocesan advisor in the Church of England and I wish some parishes in the diocese would take my advice! Like that they would include intercessions in their services, have more than one Bible reading, learn how to use liturgy in a charismatic church, get their worship leaders some training and authorisation.....
It does begin to look a bit like some centralised control is going on
There is nothing wrong with centralised control as long as I am the one in control. You know it is for your own good.
Whatever you say is obviously right, @CharlesRead, whatever you say.
[Payment in used £10 notes, please, at the usual drop point.]
As a tangent, precisely what training and authorisation does a worship leader in the C of E need?
Asking for a friend...
It depends what you mean by worship leader.
If you mean what it ought to mean, i.e. the person who stands at the front and takes a service, it's an ordained person, a Reader/Licensed Lay Minister, with the incumbents permission and as part of training, an ordinand, or in default, a Churchwarden.
Only a person in priest's or bishop's orders may celebrate Holy Communion.
If you mean by worship leader the way it's often currently misused, as the person in charge of the music, virtually nothing is required apart from the incumbent's permission.
...If you mean by worship leader the way it's often currently misused, as the person in charge of the music, virtually nothing is required apart from the incumbent's permission.
Well I am a diocesan advisor in the Church of England and I wish some parishes in the diocese would take my advice! Like that they would include intercessions in their services, have more than one Bible reading, learn how to use liturgy in a charismatic church, get their worship leaders some training and authorisation.....
It does begin to look a bit like some centralised control is going on
There is nothing wrong with centralised control as long as I am the one in control. You know it is for your own good.
Tongue in cheek joking aside - how much prayer and reflection/discussion goes into this? There is a "do to" feeling about this as opposed "do with."
If you mean by worship leader the way it's often currently misused, as the person in charge of the music, virtually nothing is required apart from the incumbent's permission.
This is about to go tangential - but I think 'Worship Leading' is a role. I'm a solid, competent amateur musician with ears (but can't play the organ, much to my regret, as I mentioned up-thread) but I'm a crap 'worship leader' - I can't command the confidence, public spirituality and real integrity of someone I know who can do it well, but is a much more 'primitive' musician. So I'd rather sit at the side (NOT stand at the front!!) in the band, when charismatics call on me. And I think of Joachim Neander during the 99th chorus of whatever we're banging out. This might be Service, or Duty.
1. There are many awful worship leaders - but there are also good, well-trained, theologically aware one who know that songs aren't the be-all and end-all of worship. Please don't tar them all with the same brush.
2. In my Baptist tradition, it used to be customary for one person to lead the entire service, including intercessions and preaching. I can think of at least one chap who was an outstanding preacher but hopeless at leading the rest of the worship.
Well I am a diocesan advisor in the Church of England and I wish some parishes in the diocese would take my advice! Like that they would include intercessions in their services, have more than one Bible reading, learn how to use liturgy in a charismatic church, get their worship leaders some training and authorisation.....
It does begin to look a bit like some centralised control is going on
There is nothing wrong with centralised control as long as I am the one in control. You know it is for your own good.
Tongue in cheek joking aside - how much prayer and reflection/discussion goes into this? There is a "do to" feeling about this as opposed "do with."
From my point of view a certain amount of 'bump feeling' goes on as I try and work out what a congregation want/will tolerate. The group I have now is very mixed having started out Lutheran (ELCA), Episcopal, Presbyterian, Catholic, whatever. What they like seems to be:
1. A straight forward traditional liturgical service.
2. A moderate amount of ceremonial.
3. A good standard of traditional music.
4. An expository, slightly academic, style of preaching.
5. The occasional potluck.
6. A marked differentiation between ordinary Sundays and Feasts.
7. They like to receive Communion by tables.
What they don't like:
1. Incense
2. Praise bands, and 7-11 music
3. Incense
4. Rite 2
5. Family Services
6. And did we mention incense?
7. Chanting the psalms and responses at MP and EP
What they are indifferent to:
1. Communion every single week
2. Eucharistic vestments, though the priest is expected to robe
It has taken me about eighteen months to work out this list, and it is far from complete. The churchmanship preference seem to be mostly MOTR Episcopal/Lutheran, though in some respects I suspect I am a little bit lower/old-fashioned than most of them. I usually read the Gospel from the pulpit; and there no elevations in the Eucharist Prayer except at the closing doxology; not much chanting except at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost/Trinity.
We are working on the education programme side of things at the moment, and that is proving to be a battle between those who live nearby and want to have education hour before the 11am service, and those who live further away and want to make a day of it once a month or so
It has definitely been worth the effort of listen carefully to what, as well as making sure that they get a certain amount of what they need. We would not get too far if I was too dictatorial; neither would we make progress if we waited for the congregation to make decisions, so a little bit of push/pull and a lot of listening seems to work in this case.
Well I am a diocesan advisor in the Church of England and I wish some parishes in the diocese would take my advice! Like that they would include intercessions in their services, have more than one Bible reading, learn how to use liturgy in a charismatic church, get their worship leaders some training and authorisation.....
Intercessions - check.
More than one scripture reading- check.
Proper (authorised even! ) liturgy - check.
Trained worship leaders (me and the priest, etc) - check.
I'd add to that stable electoral roll, stable or rising regular attendance figures, rising Sunday School numbers and teenagers attending, plus we pay our full Parish Share plus extra donation - and still our Diocesan Mission Adviser isn't happy.
Well I am a diocesan advisor in the Church of England and I wish some parishes in the diocese would take my advice! Like that they would include intercessions in their services, have more than one Bible reading, learn how to use liturgy in a charismatic church, get their worship leaders some training and authorisation.....
It does begin to look a bit like some centralised control is going on
There is nothing wrong with centralised control as long as I am the one in control. You know it is for your own good.
Tongue in cheek joking aside - how much prayer and reflection/discussion goes into this? There is a "do to" feeling about this as opposed "do with."
From my point of view a certain amount of 'bump feeling' goes on as I try and work out what a congregation want/will tolerate.
<snip>
It has definitely been worth the effort of listen carefully to what they want and praying about it, as well as making sure that they get a certain amount of what they need. We would not get too far if I was too dictatorial; neither would we make progress if I waited for the congregation to make decisions, so a little bit of push/pull and a lot of listening seems to work in this case.
Had to edit the last paragraph as it was suffering from the brain moving faster than fingers disease.
@TheOrganist - I have a suspicion that it is not the purpose of Diocesan Mission Advisors to be happy, but to keep us awake. Taking that attitude to them at least makes a lot of their complaining bearable, if not welcome. I tend to go along with anything the DMA asks which is possible in our context, and not at odds with our Statement of Purpose. I can think of one sentence in our Statement that would irritate our DMA which is
"As a congregation we are committed to the authority of Scripture; to the Reformed theological tradition within Anglicanism tradition; and to a high standard of public worship according to the traditional forms contained in the Book of Common Prayer."
I know perfected well that the word "Reformed" alone is enough to majorly cheese him of, but the group who started the congregation was not going to let me get away with being too vague on theology.
...If you mean by worship leader the way it's often currently misused, as the person in charge of the music, virtually nothing is required apart from the incumbent's permission.
...including musical training, ability, or taste.
Musically ability is usually the minimum requirement. And the ability to recognise variants in the Minister's tone of voice when s/he talks about what they want in the service.
At a previous church, there were a few songs that were strictly off limits. Including the one with the sentence, "And in his presence, our problems disappear ...". (Which is rubbish. Often in his presence, my problems start doing cartwheels to remind me they're there).
The music leader's criteria for selecting songs for the evening service was that he liked them and they were nice for the group to play. And that one fitted so he ignored the ban. On the one night the head of music and the senior Minister made one of their rare appearances ... The resulting after service row was pretty spectacular.
Well, we had our Diocesan Mission Adviser over for the day on Saturday; he wasn't an arse, but encouraged us and was a help to us. As ever, YMMV, but ours was good.
This is about to go tangential - but I think 'Worship Leading' is a role. I'm a solid, competent amateur musician with ears (but can't play the organ, much to my regret, as I mentioned up-thread) but I'm a crap 'worship leader' - I can't command the confidence, public spirituality and real integrity of someone I know who can do it well, but is a much more 'primitive' musician. So I'd rather sit at the side (NOT stand at the front!!) in the band, when charismatics call on me. And I think of Joachim Neander during the 99th chorus of whatever we're banging out. This might be Service, or Duty.
Yes, if you wish. It can be a valuable calling. However, if so, please don't call him or her the "Worship Leader".
If you're going to use the term, the "Worship Leader" is the person who presides if it is a communion service, and the person who occupies the comparable role in a non-eucharistic service.
Otherwise, what you are saying is that,
a. The music is the only part of the service that is worship,
b. Whatever else is happening in the service, isn't worship,
c. It's just something that tops and tails the singing, or worse, listening to the band or the choir singing and playing.
d. And that includes Holy Communion.
e. If one agrees with some version our chief end being to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever, then the implication follows that we are only really doing that when we are singing choruses - everything else is something lesser.
"If one agrees with some version our chief end being to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever, then the implication follows that we are only really doing that when we are singing choruses - everything else is something lesser."
This is why some people have a fear of Heaven. It just sounds too darn boring.
...At a previous church, there were a few songs that were strictly off limits. Including the one with the sentence, "And in his presence, our problems disappear ...". (Which is rubbish. Often in his presence, my problems start doing cartwheels to remind me they're there). ...
...please don't call him or her the "Worship Leader"...
Otherwise, what you are saying is that,
a. The music is the only part of the service that is worship,
b. Whatever else is happening in the service, isn't worship,
c. It's just something that tops and tails the singing, or worse, listening to the band or the choir singing and playing.
d. And that includes Holy Communion.
e. If one agrees with some version our chief end being to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever, then the implication follows that we are only really doing that when we are singing choruses - everything else is something lesser.
I'd never have thought of it like that, though I can see that it follows. I suppose I have accepted the term as meaning 'the person that leads the singing' in a charismatic context, because that's where I've met it. Our church doesn't need one - the hymns get going fine on their own, though we are blessed with a good organist. But the charismatics I know seem to need someone to get them in the groove. Well, there it is - they find it valuable and I know I can't do it!
(Getting really tangential, I found the term 'worship' useful when coming back to faith as being more about 'that from which I derive ultimate meaning' than being about adoration, praise and all that. But that's just me, I guess.)
...please don't call him or her the "Worship Leader"...
Otherwise, what you are saying is that,
a. The music is the only part of the service that is worship,
b. Whatever else is happening in the service, isn't worship,
c. It's just something that tops and tails the singing, or worse, listening to the band or the choir singing and playing.
d. And that includes Holy Communion.
e. If one agrees with some version our chief end being to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever, then the implication follows that we are only really doing that when we are singing choruses - everything else is something lesser.
I'd never have thought of it like that, though I can see that it follows. I suppose I have accepted the term as meaning 'the person that leads the singing' in a charismatic context, because that's where I've met it. Our church doesn't need one - the hymns get going fine on their own, though we are blessed with a good organist. But the charismatics I know seem to need someone to get them in the groove. Well, there it is - they find it valuable and I know I can't do it!
(Getting really tangential, I found the term 'worship' useful when coming back to faith as being more about 'that from which I derive ultimate meaning' than being about adoration, praise and all that. But that's just me, I guess.)
Surely "precentor" is a perfectly good term for someone who leads the singing in church?
@Lyda - some folks vision heaven would definitely having me signing up for Valhalla, which sounds like there might actually be something interesting going on. I have long since settled for thinking of heaven as a state of peace and blessedness in Christ that is just too good for me to imagine right now.
@Arethosemyfeet - The fruit of my experience is that one or two strong singer can carry a congregation, and we are blessed to have them. We usually have one service on a Sunday for which there is no organist available, and so we do Merbeck's setting of the Communion service, and two or three simple hymns and manage that way. I find folks are a bit intimidated by the silences at the offertory and before and after the service. I guess folks are not used to quiet any more.
Surely "precentor" is a perfectly good term for someone who leads the singing in church?
I can't help but think, though, that a church with a praise band isn't likely to use a word that sounds as churchy as "precentor."
Personally, I'd go with "song leader" or "music leader."
'Cause "worship" doesn't sound at all churchy.
Ha! Yes, it does, but not the same kind of churchy. Maybe it’s different on your side of The Pond, but on this side, it suspect only church geeks have ever heard of a “precentor,” or would have any clue what one does.
So while “worship” is churchy in the church-specific sense, “precentor” would be seen as churchy in the church-insider sense.
I think the term is relatively well known in Scotland but not down south, but even in Scotland it is considered a bit old fashioned. But then evangelical churches are hardly immune from having their own special lexicon, "youth pastor" and all. I dare say if they started using Precentor it wouldn't stay obscure for long.
I have never been one to kick against Churchese, but having had to deal with a congregation that has a
"Servant Leadership Council (SLC)" instead of a Vestry
"Congregational President" instead of a Senior Warden;
and a whole bunch of other stuff, AND also remember the acronyms, because no-one uses the terminology, I am now an even more confirmed user of Churchese.
I think the term is relatively well known in Scotland but not down south, but even in Scotland it is considered a bit old fashioned.
Almost all English cathedrals have a precentor, who is called that. In the Anglican context, this is a priest (often a minor canon) who sings the minister's parts during choral evensong (and, I suppose, choral mattins in places where that still happens) and who works with the Dean, Chapter, and musicians to plan the liturgy and music.
Choirs in Anglican churches throughout the Anglophone world (at least) are often divided into two sections who sit facing each other: the decani and the [prae]cantoris or the dean's side and the precentor's side. This custom is quite common even in parish churches that have neither a dean nor a precentor!
The statutes by which the ancient cathedrals were governed were in Latin as well, and several cathedrals kept their records in Latin long after the Reformation - e.g. Lincoln did not start keeping its chapter minute book in English until about 1685.
Cathedral Precentors come in two sorts
(1) Old Foundation were they are one of the four great officers of the chapter along with the Dean, Chancellor, and Treasurer. e.g. Lincoln, York, Lichfield, and Salisbury.
(2) New Foundation, where they are a minor Canons (basically assistant clergy) wmployed by the Dean and Chapter - e.g. Peterborough, Ely, Chester, and Durham.
Modern Foundations tend to follow the custom of the New Foundations.
I think the term is relatively well known in Scotland but not down south, but even in Scotland it is considered a bit old fashioned.
Almost all English cathedrals have a precentor, who is called that. In the Anglican context, this is a priest (often a minor canon) who sings the minister's parts during choral evensong (and, I suppose, choral mattins in places where that still happens) and who works with the Dean, Chapter, and musicians to plan the liturgy and music.
Choirs in Anglican churches throughout the Anglophone world (at least) are often divided into two sections who sit facing each other: the decani and the [prae]cantoris or the dean's side and the precentor's side. This custom is quite common even in parish churches that have neither a dean nor a precentor!
In Scotland though in times past every Kirk would have had its own precentor, while extremely few English churches would and there it remains an obscure term like Residentiary Canon unfamiliar even to most churchgoers. I certainly never encountered the term before moving north.
Of course one has to remember that until about 150 years ago Presbyterian churches would not have organs or indeed choirs of any sort. This is still the case in the various versions of the Free Church of Scotland. The precentor would give the line,sometimes line by line, and the congregation would either continue with the Psalm or indeed follow line by line repeating what the Precentor sang.
For me I see this connection between the Free Church and the earlier Catholic tradition where most of the sung words are taken from the Psalms of David.
Organs were fairly uncommon in the CofE until the mid-19th century. My home parish had had one since 1737, which was replaced in 1817, and again 1898, but most parishes around my way had either the clerk 'lining out' the Psalms, or a small band and singers in the west gallery.
Hymns were also slow putting in an appearance, especially in High Church parishes. Home Parish's first hymn book is about 1826 and contains the New Version of the Psalms plus a selection of hymns. It was more a metrical psalter with a hymn supplement than a true hymnbook. I don't know how long it lasted, but Hymns Awful and Maudlin was introduced to the parish, to protests, in 1867. Apparently, the locals thought the new book too High Church.
We have a couple of Sundays each month when we have no morning organist, then I set the pitch, and with two or three other strong singers keep the hymns and Kyrie, Gloria, etc., going.
@PDR until a court case in the early nineteenth century, it was generally taken as read that only Psalms could be sung in church. Hymns were a Dissent thing. That was especially when in the late eighteenth century they came to be the mark of 'them Methodies'.
There were two usual versions of the psalms, the Old Version (Sternhold & Hopkins) from Queen Elizabeth's reign, (what was good enough for St Paul is good enough for us), and the New Version (Tate & Brady) from the late Restoration, which gradually superseded it in many places during the course of the eighteenth century.
They were sung before and after Morning and Evening Prayer - i.e. where the hymns went between 1870 and 1970. More musically complex versions often formed the Anthem (in Quires and places where they sing). Something that's quite difficult to find out is to what extent they were used in place of the 'read psalms' and canticles, as that may have been illegal.
Away from cathedrals and collegiate churches, chanting prose psalms seems to have been almost unknown. Elsewhere, that was an Oxford movement thing. However, in the early nineteenth century, there were quite a lot of settings for singing the canticles in prose. These were more likely in the more sophisticated town parishes.
Both Sternhold & Hopkins and Tate & Brady included a very small selection of hymns. While shepherds watched is one. So are the Morning and Evening hymns Awake my soul and Glory to thee my God this night. By being included, they seem to have escaped the prohibition that applied otherwise, and everyone knew them.
A lot of the pre Hymns Awful and Maudlin versions of tunes most of us know were livelier and more fun to sing than later settings. They often include ornamentation that Hymns Awful and Maudlin cleared out. The Oxford Movement didn't really approve of anything that wasn't solemn in the right sort of way.
Two reasons why the British churches were slow to get organs:
1. They had far more competent West Gallery musicians capable of giving accompaniment and churning out other music.
2. The development of the organ in these islands lagged a long way behind those on the continent in that, with the exception of a few in cathedrals, British organs didn't have a pedal board. This meant that if an organ was the thing to use for accompanying metrical psalms then it sounded far less robust because it was only spread over about two and a half octaves, as opposed to the greater range and depth available from the band.
Yes, I've played a few with 16' diapasons on a manual which turn out to be the same pipes as are activated by the pedals. I've been given to wonder whether they were initially there to add depth (at the cost of muddying the harmony) and the pedalboard a later addition.
While Shepherds Watched is not technically a hymn but a metrical paraphrase. You will find such paraphrases at the end of many old Bibles along with the metrical psalms.
@PDR until a court case in the early nineteenth century, it was generally taken as read that only Psalms could be sung in church. Hymns were a Dissent thing. That was especially when in the late eighteenth century they came to be the mark of 'them Methodies'.
Of course you're right - but the presence of an organ to accompany the hymn singing (in 4 parts!) was very much frowned upon for a while, and societies fell out over it.
Though there are not many of us now, and we're getting on, we still make a good noise on the old hymns. I'll be sorry when it ends.
Two reasons why the British churches were slow to get organs:
1. They had far more competent West Gallery musicians capable of giving accompaniment and churning out other music.
2. The development of the organ in these islands lagged a long way behind those on the continent in that, with the exception of a few in cathedrals, British organs didn't have a pedal board. This meant that if an organ was the thing to use for accompanying metrical psalms then it sounded far less robust because it was only spread over about two and a half octaves, as opposed to the greater range and depth available from the band.
It must have made the organ a much more attractive and practical proposition when electricity made it possible to play without having to employ one or more menials to pump, and to have organs which did not have to be constrained by what limitations tracker actions impose on how complex the keys etc can be.
... but the presence of an organ to accompany the hymn singing (in 4 parts!) was very much frowned upon for a while, and societies fell out over it. ...
Speaking from experience, it's much easier to sing four part harmony if each line is being played by a different and distinctive instrument.
There are many 18th century organs in (18th century) American churches. They're all on the east coast, for obvious reasons, but they're there - and, in most cases, still being played.
One of my slightly unexpected jobs as a wet behind the ears lay reader in certain small country churches back in the UK was not only to read the service but pump the organ. They were usually small instruments - six or seven stops including the compulsory trumpet, and what we irreverently called 'a flatulent flue' - usually a stopped 8' - as the only pedal stop. They usually had enough heft for hymn singing, but one's range of voluntaries was a bit restricted - John Stanley to rescue on many a Sunday. There was one 2 manual Foster and Andrews' instrument that was hand pumped locally, but even that was not too bad.
Sorry. But unless someone comes along with some outrage porn, I just don't seem to be able to, err, work it up. Perhaps I'll go and have a look at the Mail Online or something.
I am afraid the most hellish I can get on this is being decidedly unimpressed by the organist who, in all seriousness, advised us to get rid of our pipe organ in favour of a toaster. Mind you, some folks do not like our pipe organ which is a medium sized Austin that escaped extensive Baroque-ing in the 1960s. I can understand using toaster where the pipe organ has gone to pieces, but not simply because the old instrument is perceived as dated.
Cameron Carpenter prefers toasters over real organs, and disses the latter in favor of the former.
He's a real showboat; I will never forget how he broke the pedal board in an inaugural recital for the organ at Verizon Hall, nor the stifled anguished scream of the builder (who was seated right behind me) when he did so. Everything had to be stopped for a half-hour while they figured out a replacement for it. That was a truly Hellish moment.
Comments
Words like accessibility and approachability tend to figure heavily in such conversations, but I think that folks who advocate exclusively for that approach are missing the fact that not everyone finds that style of worship accessible, approachable, or even very worshipful. However, I suspect it is more a case of that is what the BOM sees as the most successful, and therefore the default, type of new plant. On the whole, though, I find it too noisy, busy and horizontal in focus to be completely satisfactory. Statistically it is highly unlikely that I am the only one who thinks that way among the 70,000 people within the catchment area of the plant I am involved with.
There is nothing wrong with centralised control as long as I am the one in control. You know it is for your own good.
It took another twenty years to get out my way possibly due to the limited number of bridges over the Trent. The Reformation seems to have had the same problems given how many of the local clergy got into trouble for saying Mass on the side during the Elizabethan era.
Whatever you say is obviously right, @CharlesRead, whatever you say.
[Payment in used £10 notes, please, at the usual drop point.]
If you mean what it ought to mean, i.e. the person who stands at the front and takes a service, it's an ordained person, a Reader/Licensed Lay Minister, with the incumbents permission and as part of training, an ordinand, or in default, a Churchwarden.
Only a person in priest's or bishop's orders may celebrate Holy Communion.
If you mean by worship leader the way it's often currently misused, as the person in charge of the music, virtually nothing is required apart from the incumbent's permission.
Tongue in cheek joking aside - how much prayer and reflection/discussion goes into this? There is a "do to" feeling about this as opposed "do with."
This is about to go tangential - but I think 'Worship Leading' is a role. I'm a solid, competent amateur musician with ears (but can't play the organ, much to my regret, as I mentioned up-thread) but I'm a crap 'worship leader' - I can't command the confidence, public spirituality and real integrity of someone I know who can do it well, but is a much more 'primitive' musician. So I'd rather sit at the side (NOT stand at the front!!) in the band, when charismatics call on me. And I think of Joachim Neander during the 99th chorus of whatever we're banging out. This might be Service, or Duty.
1. There are many awful worship leaders - but there are also good, well-trained, theologically aware one who know that songs aren't the be-all and end-all of worship. Please don't tar them all with the same brush.
2. In my Baptist tradition, it used to be customary for one person to lead the entire service, including intercessions and preaching. I can think of at least one chap who was an outstanding preacher but hopeless at leading the rest of the worship.
From my point of view a certain amount of 'bump feeling' goes on as I try and work out what a congregation want/will tolerate. The group I have now is very mixed having started out Lutheran (ELCA), Episcopal, Presbyterian, Catholic, whatever. What they like seems to be:
1. A straight forward traditional liturgical service.
2. A moderate amount of ceremonial.
3. A good standard of traditional music.
4. An expository, slightly academic, style of preaching.
5. The occasional potluck.
6. A marked differentiation between ordinary Sundays and Feasts.
7. They like to receive Communion by tables.
What they don't like:
1. Incense
2. Praise bands, and 7-11 music
3. Incense
4. Rite 2
5. Family Services
6. And did we mention incense?
7. Chanting the psalms and responses at MP and EP
What they are indifferent to:
1. Communion every single week
2. Eucharistic vestments, though the priest is expected to robe
It has taken me about eighteen months to work out this list, and it is far from complete. The churchmanship preference seem to be mostly MOTR Episcopal/Lutheran, though in some respects I suspect I am a little bit lower/old-fashioned than most of them. I usually read the Gospel from the pulpit; and there no elevations in the Eucharist Prayer except at the closing doxology; not much chanting except at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost/Trinity.
We are working on the education programme side of things at the moment, and that is proving to be a battle between those who live nearby and want to have education hour before the 11am service, and those who live further away and want to make a day of it once a month or so
It has definitely been worth the effort of listen carefully to what, as well as making sure that they get a certain amount of what they need. We would not get too far if I was too dictatorial; neither would we make progress if we waited for the congregation to make decisions, so a little bit of push/pull and a lot of listening seems to work in this case.
More than one scripture reading- check.
Proper (authorised even! ) liturgy - check.
Trained worship leaders (me and the priest, etc) - check.
I'd add to that stable electoral roll, stable or rising regular attendance figures, rising Sunday School numbers and teenagers attending, plus we pay our full Parish Share plus extra donation - and still our Diocesan Mission Adviser isn't happy.
Had to edit the last paragraph as it was suffering from the brain moving faster than fingers disease.
@TheOrganist - I have a suspicion that it is not the purpose of Diocesan Mission Advisors to be happy, but to keep us awake. Taking that attitude to them at least makes a lot of their complaining bearable, if not welcome. I tend to go along with anything the DMA asks which is possible in our context, and not at odds with our Statement of Purpose. I can think of one sentence in our Statement that would irritate our DMA which is
"As a congregation we are committed to the authority of Scripture; to the Reformed theological tradition within Anglicanism tradition; and to a high standard of public worship according to the traditional forms contained in the Book of Common Prayer."
I know perfected well that the word "Reformed" alone is enough to majorly cheese him of, but the group who started the congregation was not going to let me get away with being too vague on theology.
Musically ability is usually the minimum requirement. And the ability to recognise variants in the Minister's tone of voice when s/he talks about what they want in the service.
At a previous church, there were a few songs that were strictly off limits. Including the one with the sentence, "And in his presence, our problems disappear ...". (Which is rubbish. Often in his presence, my problems start doing cartwheels to remind me they're there).
The music leader's criteria for selecting songs for the evening service was that he liked them and they were nice for the group to play. And that one fitted so he ignored the ban. On the one night the head of music and the senior Minister made one of their rare appearances ... The resulting after service row was pretty spectacular.
If you're going to use the term, the "Worship Leader" is the person who presides if it is a communion service, and the person who occupies the comparable role in a non-eucharistic service.
Otherwise, what you are saying is that,
a. The music is the only part of the service that is worship,
b. Whatever else is happening in the service, isn't worship,
c. It's just something that tops and tails the singing, or worse, listening to the band or the choir singing and playing.
d. And that includes Holy Communion.
e. If one agrees with some version our chief end being to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever, then the implication follows that we are only really doing that when we are singing choruses - everything else is something lesser.
This is why some people have a fear of Heaven. It just sounds too darn boring.
I'd never have thought of it like that, though I can see that it follows. I suppose I have accepted the term as meaning 'the person that leads the singing' in a charismatic context, because that's where I've met it. Our church doesn't need one - the hymns get going fine on their own, though we are blessed with a good organist. But the charismatics I know seem to need someone to get them in the groove. Well, there it is - they find it valuable and I know I can't do it!
(Getting really tangential, I found the term 'worship' useful when coming back to faith as being more about 'that from which I derive ultimate meaning' than being about adoration, praise and all that. But that's just me, I guess.)
Surely "precentor" is a perfectly good term for someone who leads the singing in church?
@Arethosemyfeet - The fruit of my experience is that one or two strong singer can carry a congregation, and we are blessed to have them. We usually have one service on a Sunday for which there is no organist available, and so we do Merbeck's setting of the Communion service, and two or three simple hymns and manage that way. I find folks are a bit intimidated by the silences at the offertory and before and after the service. I guess folks are not used to quiet any more.
Personally, I'd go with "song leader" or "music leader."
'Cause "worship" doesn't sound at all churchy.
So while “worship” is churchy in the church-specific sense, “precentor” would be seen as churchy in the church-insider sense.
"Servant Leadership Council (SLC)" instead of a Vestry
"Congregational President" instead of a Senior Warden;
and a whole bunch of other stuff, AND also remember the acronyms, because no-one uses the terminology, I am now an even more confirmed user of Churchese.
Almost all English cathedrals have a precentor, who is called that. In the Anglican context, this is a priest (often a minor canon) who sings the minister's parts during choral evensong (and, I suppose, choral mattins in places where that still happens) and who works with the Dean, Chapter, and musicians to plan the liturgy and music.
Choirs in Anglican churches throughout the Anglophone world (at least) are often divided into two sections who sit facing each other: the decani and the [prae]cantoris or the dean's side and the precentor's side. This custom is quite common even in parish churches that have neither a dean nor a precentor!
Cathedral Precentors come in two sorts
(1) Old Foundation were they are one of the four great officers of the chapter along with the Dean, Chancellor, and Treasurer. e.g. Lincoln, York, Lichfield, and Salisbury.
(2) New Foundation, where they are a minor Canons (basically assistant clergy) wmployed by the Dean and Chapter - e.g. Peterborough, Ely, Chester, and Durham.
Modern Foundations tend to follow the custom of the New Foundations.
In Scotland though in times past every Kirk would have had its own precentor, while extremely few English churches would and there it remains an obscure term like Residentiary Canon unfamiliar even to most churchgoers. I certainly never encountered the term before moving north.
For me I see this connection between the Free Church and the earlier Catholic tradition where most of the sung words are taken from the Psalms of David.
Hymns were also slow putting in an appearance, especially in High Church parishes. Home Parish's first hymn book is about 1826 and contains the New Version of the Psalms plus a selection of hymns. It was more a metrical psalter with a hymn supplement than a true hymnbook. I don't know how long it lasted, but Hymns Awful and Maudlin was introduced to the parish, to protests, in 1867. Apparently, the locals thought the new book too High Church.
We have a couple of Sundays each month when we have no morning organist, then I set the pitch, and with two or three other strong singers keep the hymns and Kyrie, Gloria, etc., going.
There were two usual versions of the psalms, the Old Version (Sternhold & Hopkins) from Queen Elizabeth's reign, (what was good enough for St Paul is good enough for us), and the New Version (Tate & Brady) from the late Restoration, which gradually superseded it in many places during the course of the eighteenth century.
They were sung before and after Morning and Evening Prayer - i.e. where the hymns went between 1870 and 1970. More musically complex versions often formed the Anthem (in Quires and places where they sing). Something that's quite difficult to find out is to what extent they were used in place of the 'read psalms' and canticles, as that may have been illegal.
Away from cathedrals and collegiate churches, chanting prose psalms seems to have been almost unknown. Elsewhere, that was an Oxford movement thing. However, in the early nineteenth century, there were quite a lot of settings for singing the canticles in prose. These were more likely in the more sophisticated town parishes.
Both Sternhold & Hopkins and Tate & Brady included a very small selection of hymns. While shepherds watched is one. So are the Morning and Evening hymns Awake my soul and Glory to thee my God this night. By being included, they seem to have escaped the prohibition that applied otherwise, and everyone knew them.
A lot of the pre Hymns Awful and Maudlin versions of tunes most of us know were livelier and more fun to sing than later settings. They often include ornamentation that Hymns Awful and Maudlin cleared out. The Oxford Movement didn't really approve of anything that wasn't solemn in the right sort of way.
1. They had far more competent West Gallery musicians capable of giving accompaniment and churning out other music.
2. The development of the organ in these islands lagged a long way behind those on the continent in that, with the exception of a few in cathedrals, British organs didn't have a pedal board. This meant that if an organ was the thing to use for accompanying metrical psalms then it sounded far less robust because it was only spread over about two and a half octaves, as opposed to the greater range and depth available from the band.
While Shepherds Watched is not technically a hymn but a metrical paraphrase. You will find such paraphrases at the end of many old Bibles along with the metrical psalms.
Of course you're right - but the presence of an organ to accompany the hymn singing (in 4 parts!) was very much frowned upon for a while, and societies fell out over it.
Though there are not many of us now, and we're getting on, we still make a good noise on the old hymns. I'll be sorry when it ends.
He's a real showboat; I will never forget how he broke the pedal board in an inaugural recital for the organ at Verizon Hall, nor the stifled anguished scream of the builder (who was seated right behind me) when he did so. Everything had to be stopped for a half-hour while they figured out a replacement for it. That was a truly Hellish moment.