When believers talk of going to a service they would say that they are going to Church. rather than going to the Church. They are refering to the assembly rather than the building.
I’m not sure that by “going to church” they are referring to the assembly as much as they are referring the service itself, as an equivalent to how some believers would say they’re going to Mass. I’ve certainly never understood “going to church” to mean the building or the assembly. The word “church” does a lot of work in English.
When growing up, I thought "the meeting" meant the Gospel Hall the "assembly" met in.
Well, the URC (formerly Congregational) church in Hadleigh, Suffolk is called "Great Meeting". So is that the building or the people? It's unclear. See: https://www.hadleighurc.org.uk/about-us
Well, the URC (formerly Congregational) church in Hadleigh, Suffolk is called "Great Meeting". So is that the building or the people? It's unclear. See: https://www.hadleighurc.org.uk/about-us
In my experience, when the term "meeting" is used, it is used to mean the people or a gathering of the people, while "meeting house" is used to mean the building.
Well, the URC (formerly Congregational) church in Hadleigh, Suffolk is called "Great Meeting". So is that the building or the people? It's unclear. See: https://www.hadleighurc.org.uk/about-us
Well, I think it was originally "The Meeting Place of the Congregationalists" and then, when they put up a larger building, that became known as "Great Meeting" - read the link. This picture of Cromer Baptist Church in Norfolk (built 1902) is intriguing - though the building is now up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/y9sdnuz7
When growing up, I thought "the meeting" meant the Gospel Hall the "assembly" met in.
That's interesting. I grew up in similar circles by the sound of it, but 'the meeting' meant either our gatherings for worship (especially the 'morning meeting' ie 'Worship and Breaking of Bread') or else it meant the Brethren 'denomination' (although we would never admit to being a denomination) so when I first had a boyfriend, my grandma's first question was 'Is he in the meeting?'
The building we met in was just referred to as 'The Hall'
There is a small hamlet called "Meeting Hill" near Worstead in Norfolk, centred around a Baptist chapel. Originally the hamlet was called "Orpley" but the Nonconformists clearly dominated the place so much that it had become known to all as "Meeting House Hill" by the early 1800s, although the word "House" has got dropped over the years. The original Meeting House was in fact a converted barn* but the congregation outgrew it and a new Chapel, still in use, was built in 1829.
*Early Nonconformist buildings were often converted from other uses, either for economy or because the political situation forced them to be discreet. The wonderful Walpole Old Chapel, now in the care of the Chapels Conservation Trust, is a prime example: it was a farmhouse but had the centre of the upstairs floor removed to make a galleried chapel. (The rest of the floor is held up by metal links radiating from a central wooden column, often said to be part of a ship's mast). Conversely the old Quaker Meeting House in the London suburb where I grew up was purpose built in 1678, but made to look like an ordinary cottage - which it has been ever since the end of the 18th century!
When believers talk of going to a service they would say that they are going to Church. rather than going to the Church. They are refering to the assembly rather than the building.
I’m not sure that by “going to church” they are referring to the assembly as much as they are referring the service itself, as an equivalent to how some believers would say they’re going to Mass. I’ve certainly never understood “going to church” to mean the building or the assembly. The word “church” does a lot of work in English.
I see it as the service. People assemble there for the service.
Right, but the assembly and the service are two distinct things, both of which we call “church,” as we do the building where the assembly assembles.
The church assembles at the church for church.
Perhaps this is part of the reason the Othodoxen sometimes call the building the “temple,” and would, I’m thinking, only informally speak of the Divine Liturgy or another service as “church.” @mousethief? @Cyprian? @cgichard?
Right, but the assembly and the service are two distinct things, both of which we call “church,” as we do the building where the assembly assembles.
The church assembles at the church for church.
Perhaps this is part of the reason the Othodoxen sometimes call the building the “temple,” and would, I’m thinking, only informally speak of the Divine Liturgy or another service as “church.” @mousethief? @Cyprian? @cgichard?
I agree with you about people's reference to "going to church" meaning attendance and participation at the service.
However, I would be wary of drawing too many firm conclusions from common English terminology used by Orthodox people. It is fraught with too many confusing influences. Among them:
1. Converts insisting on using Russian or Greek words for articles that have had perfectly serviceable English names for as long as anybody can remember. (So we can't have a censer or thurible: we must have a kadillah; individual churches that fall outside the jurisdiction of the geographical diocese can't be called peculiars; they must be called stavropegial churches, and so forth.)
2. People whose first language is not English misunderstanding English-language terms and then publishing books and liturgical materials with this misunderstanding, which English converts then see as giving official Orthodox status to this unusual word usage, ("If the cradle Orthodox say it, it must be right, and those damned Protestants must have taught me wrong all my life. I'm going to use this word now to show how Orthodox I am.")
My guess is that at some point, some kindly Russian migrated to the anglophone world and heard people use the word "Lent" to refer to what they knew as "the great fast" and thought that the English word "Lent" must be a direct equivalent to the Russian word "post" (which is actually the word for "fast"). Wanting to blend in to the local culture, the kindly Russian started to refer to "Great Lent". Then it got transferred to other fasting seasons. This is why you hear some Orthodox people talking about the Dormition Lent, the Nativity Lent, and other similar things that make no sense, when what they mean is the Dormition fast, the Nativity fast, and such like. Ask them to translate "Lenten fast" back into Russian and you can actually see their minds exploding.
For me, referring to a Christian church as a temple is a sort of cross between the two: migrant misunderstanding and convert affectation. It's probably best avoided.
I've never heard of kadillahs or stavropegial. The thing with the incense is the censer, in all the OCA, Antiochian, and Greek parishes I have had the pleasure to have been in. I don't know what you mean by "outside the jurisdiction of the geographical diocese". I know in Catholicism you can have for example a church that is attached to an order (say, the Benedictines) that isn't attached to the local bishop or his see. But I didn't know that was possible in Orthodoxy, particularly since we don't have orders the way the Catholics do.
Or do you mean episcopi vagantes? These bishops and their priests and laypeople I have always heard referred to as "vagante" as a singular or mass term or adjective, or "vagantes" as plural.
I've heard Advent called "winter Lent" but that seemed to me to be of the same species as referring to every Sunday as a "little Pascha." An analogy. I've never heard Apostles' Lent or Dormition Lent.
I think "temple" is used because "Church" refers to the whole of Orthodoxy. Having two words for two different things is good because it reduces confusion. The whole schlamiel is the Church. The building is the temple. The local community is the parish or monastic community. Calling them all "church" may be very English but it's also very confusing. I would think a way of reducing unnecessary equivocation would be a good thing. I don't know what the Russian/Greek/Arabic/Whatevs way of reducing this confusion is. Frankly don't care.
There are other Greek or Slavonic words that are used in English conversation (and liturgically) in my experience (I can't vouch for my spelling): Theotokos, plaschanitsa/epitaphion, epitrachelion. The first of these is the only one-word way of saying that in English (the natural English calque would be Godsdam but it's clear why that wouldn't work); the second/third have no English word. The last could easily be called a stole, and there's no reason it isn't that I can think of.
[tangent] The Orthodox usage that always interests me is “serve,” as in “serve the Divine Liturgy.” You don’t often hear that among Western Christians, though I do occasionally hear some of my tribe speak of serving Communion, when they’re clearly using it to mean “celebrating” rather than administering the elements.
"stavropegic" is the term for a monastery (or occasionally a parish) that comes under the jurisdiction of the Primate of the (local) Church, rather than under the local diocesan Bishop. So, for instance, the Monastery of St John the Baptist in Essex UK has the Ecumenical Patiarch (Archbishop of Constantinople) as their Bishop, rather than the Arcbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain. Similarly the Russian Parish of the Protecting Veil of the Mother of God in Manchester UK has the Patriarch of Moscow as its Bishop and not the Bishop of Sourozh (although, somewhat bizarrely, the current Bishop of Sourozh is the Rector of the parish).
[tangent] The Orthodox usage that always interests me is “serve,” as in “serve the Divine Liturgy.” You don’t often hear that among Western Christians, though I do occasionally hear some of my tribe speak of serving Communion, when they’re clearly using it to mean “celebrating” rather than administering the elements.
[/tangent]
The priest serves the Divine Liturgy. The true celebrant is Christ our High Priest: "the one who offers and is offered" (Prayer before the Great Entrance).
To my ear, "temple" is decidedly North American usage, and the lower case initial c distinguishes the church (building) from the Church, which is Christ.
My church family was meeting in a church hall, used also by other groups such as keep-fit classes and children's play sessions. One of the priests who served Liturgy there for us, used to mispronounce "venerable" in the Litany petition for "all those who do good works in this holy and all-venerable House" as "vulnerable" - which has proved all too prescient, as we can no longer meet there.
To my ear, "temple" is decidedly North American usage, and the lower case initial c distinguishes the church (building) from the Church, which is Christ.
I held to that for many years, but by about 15-20 years ago the differentiation seemed to have slipped from editorial policies, both in books and journalism
I've never heard of kadillahs or stavropegial. The thing with the incense is the censer, in all the OCA, Antiochian, and Greek parishes I have had the pleasure to have been in.
It's perhaps a conceit of certain English converts that I have met. I'm glad to hear this hasn't travelled too far. I learnt the word "kadillah" from the occasion when a priest was barking it at me in the altar, and became frustrated by my blank stare. The priest was English.
I don't know what you mean by "outside the jurisdiction of the geographical diocese". I know in Catholicism you can have for example a church that is attached to an order (say, the Benedictines) that isn't attached to the local bishop or his see. But I didn't know that was possible in Orthodoxy, particularly since we don't have orders the way the Catholics do.
You more often find it, in my experience, in the cases of monasteries but there are parishes as well. It's essentially as @Ex_Organist has said. In addition to his good examples, all Western Rite communities in ROCOR are designated as "stavropegial/stavropegic" (I've seen both forms of the word). So those Western Rite communities that exist in Scandinavia are not actually part of the local diocese or under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, despite being on the geographical territory of his diocese. Their bishop is Metropolitan Hilarion of New York.
The English word for this is peculiar and at least in Britain is a generally understood concept in church life, probably because a number of the examples here are famous and are always on our television screens for big events. I'm thinking of the royal peculiars such as Westminster Abbey and the chapels royal but there are other peculiars that are not royal. What makes them peculiars is that they sit geographically within a particular diocese but do not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop of that diocese. Why Orthodox cannot simply use the existing English word, I don't know. But stavropegial seems to be what is preferred.
I've never heard Apostles' Lent or Dormition Lent.
I envy you. I've seen it written plenty of times. It's been five years since I've had cause to purchase it but this particular publication, despite being excellent in many ways, followed this usage. I don't know about now.
I think "temple" is used because "Church" refers to the whole of Orthodoxy. Having two words for two different things is good because it reduces confusion. The whole schlamiel is the Church. The building is the temple. The local community is the parish or monastic community. Calling them all "church" may be very English but it's also very confusing. I would think a way of reducing unnecessary equivocation would be a good thing. I don't know what the Russian/Greek/Arabic/Whatevs way of reducing this confusion is. Frankly don't care.
I agree with you and @Nick Tamen that we do place a very heavy burden on the poor shoulders of the word church in English but it seems to work well enough, with the meaning being clear from context most of the time. Forcing a new usage because it makes logical sense just doesn't seem to work practically, but - but - I appreciate that English comes out in the wash differently in different parts of the world.
It's such a widespread language that we sometimes forget this. I had this conversation in my ROCOR days with a fellow ROCORite based in the USA who had been involved in the editing process of the Jordanville liturgical texts, which, while not having any official status beyond having received episcopal blessing just as any other liturgical text, seems the most widely used in that jurisdiction for a number of reasons. He was shocked that most ROCOR communities in the UK at the time didn't use them, but what seemed like natural and beautiful "liturgical" English to the American compilers was something in which the UK communities had little to no interest. So that's something for me to bear in mind the other way round, I suppose.
There are other Greek or Slavonic words that are used in English conversation (and liturgically) in my experience (I can't vouch for my spelling): Theotokos, plaschanitsa/epitaphion, epitrachelion. The first of these is the only one-word way of saying that in English (the natural English calque would be Godsdam but it's clear why that wouldn't work); the second/third have no English word. The last could easily be called a stole, and there's no reason it isn't that I can think of.
I've often heard the deacon's orar and priest's epitrachil referred to as stoles, and very rarely the plashchanitsa referred to as the burial shroud. Theotokos is different, I think. It's a theological term that has come down to us in Greek from antiquity, and using it seems to me at least to be different from importing a modern Greek or Slavic word in an attempt to seem more Orthodox. Even so, my personal preference is for Mother of God, or Dei Gentrix as we sing in the lovely Latin hymn.
The Orthodox usage that always interests me is “serve,” as in “serve the Divine Liturgy.” You don’t often hear that among Western Christians, though I do occasionally hear some of my tribe speak of serving Communion, when they’re clearly using it to mean “celebrating” rather than administering the elements.
The priest serves the Divine Liturgy. The true celebrant is Christ our High Priest: "the one who offers and is offered" (Prayer before the Great Entrance).
That explanation, @Ex_Organist is theologically correct but I don't think it's the reason why the term is used.
My understanding (and this is second or possibly third hand) is that the Greek (and I believe the Russian) languages have a verb for what the priest does that directly refers to his role as performing liturgy - liturgy often being poorly defined as "the work of the people" but more properly understood as a work that is done for and on behalf of the whole people - which is why I think service is an excellent English word for what we do in church. The priest is literally performing a service.
English doesn't have a direct equivalent to this verb. I've heard some Orthodox try to express this with the neologism liturgise: Fr George will liturgise on Sunday morning, but "serve the Liturgy", "serve Vespers", &c sounds a little easier on the ear.
That said, I'm very happy to use the common English expression, "offer the Mass".
Right, but the assembly and the service are two distinct things, both of which we call “church,” as we do the building where the assembly assembles.
The church assembles at the church for church.
Perhaps this is part of the reason the Othodoxen sometimes call the building the “temple,” and would, I’m thinking, only informally speak of the Divine Liturgy or another service as “church.” @mousethief? @Cyprian? @cgichard?
Moving away - if I may - from Orthodoxy, many will have heard of the letter written this week to "The Times" and pleading for clergy to be allowed back into their buildings, if only to stream services (which was specifically permitted by the Government but banned by at least CofE and CinW bishops). This letter also refers to :Peter Selby's article in "The Tablet" in which he roundly criticises ++Justin's (and others') broadcasts from kitchens or living rooms as giving out the subliminal message of a final retreat from the public arena into private domesticity, from serving the public to becoming a religious "in-group". I haven't read the whole article as much of it is sadly behind a pay wall - but does he, and the hundreds of signatories to the "Times" letter, have a point?
AIUI, the C of E is now allowing clergy back into the churches, to say the Office, and/or live-stream a service (providing that anyone else present is a member of the priest's household!).
Peter Selby may have a point, though whether or not it's valid, I wouldn't care to say. Personally, I'm finding that services live-streamed from kitchens/studies/dining-rooms tend to distract me by giving me too many other things to look at - books, furniture, kitchenalia etc. - and I much prefer a service celebrated in a simple 'churchy' private chapel (which might indeed be in a study or other room). But that's just me, and YMMV.
There is indeed some feeling in the C of E that complete closure of the churches was going an unnecessary step too far. Whether this will have any lasting effect remains to be seen - I'm not too convinced by the euphoria over the numbers viewing online worship, and rather cynically doubt if this will be reflected in increased attendances in 'real church'.
I may have mentioned this before, but some churches have at least varied their online worship by including readings, intercessions, and music, from other sources/people/places. This helps, I think, to remove the feeling of being shut up in an 'upper room', and acts as a reminder that the church is made up of lots of different elements, not just the Vicar in his/her dining-room.
AIUI, the C of E is now allowing clergy back into the churches, to say the Office, and/or live-stream a service (providing that anyone else present is a member of the priest's household!).
Peter Selby may have a point, though whether or not it's valid, I wouldn't care to say. Personally, I'm finding that services live-streamed from kitchens/studies/dining-rooms tend to distract me by giving me too many other things to look at - books, furniture, kitchenalia etc. - and I much prefer a service celebrated in a simple 'churchy' private chapel (which might indeed be in a study or other room). But that's just me, and YMMV.
There is indeed some feeling in the C of E that complete closure of the churches was going an unnecessary step too far. Whether this will have any lasting effect remains to be seen - I'm not too convinced by the euphoria over the numbers viewing online worship, and rather cynically doubt if this will be reflected in increased attendances in 'real church'.
I may have mentioned this before, but some churches have at least varied their online worship by including readings, intercessions, and music, from other sources/people/places. This helps, I think, to remove the feeling of being shut up in an 'upper room', and acts as a reminder that the church is made up of lots of different elements, not just the Vicar in his/her dining-room.
Ha ha I agree @Bishops Finger the distractions are many, not least their taste in art. I too prefer a more churchy backdrop.
I wonder what kind of services will be offered once we can return in person. Church being the people at home as well as those attending - as it will have to be for some time, for larger congregations - has to be a new kind of church, doesn’t it?
Theotokos is different, I think. It's a theological term that has come down to us in Greek from antiquity, and using it seems to me at least to be different from importing a modern Greek or Slavic word in an attempt to seem more Orthodox. Even so, my personal preference is for Mother of God, or Dei Gentrix as we sing in the lovely Latin hymn.
Except it doesn't mean "Mother of God." It's not Theometer. It's Theotokos.
AIUI, the C of E is now allowing clergy back into the churches, to say the Office, and/or live-stream a service (providing that anyone else present is a member of the priest's household!).
Peter Selby may have a point, though whether or not it's valid, I wouldn't care to say. Personally, I'm finding that services live-streamed from kitchens/studies/dining-rooms tend to distract me by giving me too many other things to look at - books, furniture, kitchenalia etc. - and I much prefer a service celebrated in a simple 'churchy' private chapel (which might indeed be in a study or other room). But that's just me, and YMMV.
There is indeed some feeling in the C of E that complete closure of the churches was going an unnecessary step too far. Whether this will have any lasting effect remains to be seen - I'm not too convinced by the euphoria over the numbers viewing online worship, and rather cynically doubt if this will be reflected in increased attendances in 'real church'.
I may have mentioned this before, but some churches have at least varied their online worship by including readings, intercessions, and music, from other sources/people/places. This helps, I think, to remove the feeling of being shut up in an 'upper room', and acts as a reminder that the church is made up of lots of different elements, not just the Vicar in his/her dining-room.
Ha ha I agree @Bishops Finger the distractions are many, not least their taste in art. I too prefer a more churchy backdrop.
I wonder what kind of services will be offered once we can return in person. Church being the people at home as well as those attending - as it will have to be for some time, for larger congregations - has to be a new kind of church, doesn’t it?
Not necessarily a new kind of church, perhaps - more a kind of 'dual church'? That is to say, 'real church' alongside 'digital church', IYSWIM.
That's not an impoverishment, but more of an enlargement, or enrichment. Or it could be...
I wonder what the copyright/privacy implications might be of filming (say) the usual Sunday service in church, and making it available online to those who couldn't be there in person? Presumably some churches do this already, but I would guess that any filming would have to have the consent of EVERYBODY present...
AIUI, the C of E is now allowing clergy back into the churches, to say the Office, and/or live-stream a service (providing that anyone else present is a member of the priest's household!).
Peter Selby may have a point, though whether or not it's valid, I wouldn't care to say. Personally, I'm finding that services live-streamed from kitchens/studies/dining-rooms tend to distract me by giving me too many other things to look at - books, furniture, kitchenalia etc. - and I much prefer a service celebrated in a simple 'churchy' private chapel (which might indeed be in a study or other room). But that's just me, and YMMV.
There is indeed some feeling in the C of E that complete closure of the churches was going an unnecessary step too far. Whether this will have any lasting effect remains to be seen - I'm not too convinced by the euphoria over the numbers viewing online worship, and rather cynically doubt if this will be reflected in increased attendances in 'real church'.
I may have mentioned this before, but some churches have at least varied their online worship by including readings, intercessions, and music, from other sources/people/places. This helps, I think, to remove the feeling of being shut up in an 'upper room', and acts as a reminder that the church is made up of lots of different elements, not just the Vicar in his/her dining-room.
Ha ha I agree @Bishops Finger the distractions are many, not least their taste in art. I too prefer a more churchy backdrop.
I wonder what kind of services will be offered once we can return in person. Church being the people at home as well as those attending - as it will have to be for some time, for larger congregations - has to be a new kind of church, doesn’t it?
Not necessarily a new kind of church, perhaps - more a kind of 'dual church'? That is to say, 'real church' alongside 'digital church', IYSWIM.
That's not an impoverishment, but more of an enlargement, or enrichment. Or it could be...
I wonder what the copyright/privacy implications might be of filming (say) the usual Sunday service in church, and making it available online to those who couldn't be there in person? Presumably some churches do this already, but I would guess that any filming would have to have the consent of EVERYBODY present...
Surely not, if only the 'business end' of the service were shown? The voices of the congregation wouldn't be heard as there won't be any singing for a while. Maybe a cough or two. I'm sure an announcement at the beginning would be enough, so that people were aware it was being filmed. It could be livestreamed every week, with the option for playback on line later. Then everyone who couldn't attend that week could still do so virtually.
I do think there will need to be a new kind of church service too, one which caters for the online visitors as well as the attendees. Probably one which doesn't include holy communion.
I wonder what the copyright/privacy implications might be of filming (say) the usual Sunday service in church, and making it available online to those who couldn't be there in person? Presumably some churches do this already, but I would guess that any filming would have to have the consent of EVERYBODY present...
Not just that, though probably attending with knowledge that the service is being filmed constitutes implied consent, at least here.
But music is another big issue. Unless hymns (text and tune), anthems, etc. are in the public domain, appropriate licensing fees need to be paid or permission from the copyright holders otherwise obtained. In the US, there are various licenses that can be purchased that cover a wide swath of hymns and other music, and I assume there are similar licenses elsewhere. We’ve been careful at our place to ensure that we’re only singing hymns that are in the public domain or are covered by the license we’ve bought.
We do plan to keep a streaming option available when this is all over, as we’ll still have shut-ins and others who can’t get to church for whatever reason. But it will require installation of more permanent (and discrete) cameras and mics.
But music is another big issue. Unless hymns (text and tune), anthems, etc. are in the public domain, appropriate licensing fees need to be paid or permission from the copyright holders otherwise obtained.
Even then there may be performance rights involved. Of course willing amateurs may just say, "Fine, OK", but that may not be true of professionals. I guess the Royal College of Organists or Royal Society of Church Musicians might have something to say.
But music is another big issue. Unless hymns (text and tune), anthems, etc. are in the public domain, appropriate licensing fees need to be paid or permission from the copyright holders otherwise obtained.
Even then there may be performance rights involved. Of course willing amateurs may just say, "Fine, OK", but that may not be true of professionals. I guess the Royal College of Organists or Royal Society of Church Musicians might have something to say.
Yes, I should have been more clear. A church has to be sure it has appropriate licenses or permission for whatever it wants to do with music, whether reproducing, performing, recording, or whatever.
Theotokos is different, I think. It's a theological term that has come down to us in Greek from antiquity, and using it seems to me at least to be different from importing a modern Greek or Slavic word in an attempt to seem more Orthodox. Even so, my personal preference is for Mother of God, or Dei Gentrix as we sing in the lovely Latin hymn.
Except it doesn't mean "Mother of God." It's not Theometer. It's Theotokos.
I was about to say the same thing when I realised you'd already said it. Though I take @Forthview's point, 'Dei Genetrix' doesn't mean 'Mother of God' either. That would be 'Dei Mater'. Nor is 'Dei Genetrix' a term one regularly hears in the way one does Theotokos.
Theotokos is different, I think. It's a theological term that has come down to us in Greek from antiquity, and using it seems to me at least to be different from importing a modern Greek or Slavic word in an attempt to seem more Orthodox. Even so, my personal preference is for Mother of God, or Dei Gentrix as we sing in the lovely Latin hymn.
Except it doesn't mean "Mother of God." It's not Theometer. It's Theotokos.
The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
Moving away - if I may - from Orthodoxy, many will have heard of the letter written this week to "The Times" and pleading for clergy to be allowed back into their buildings, if only to stream services (which was specifically permitted by the Government but banned by at least CofE and CinW bishops). This letter also refers to :Peter Selby's article in "The Tablet" in which he roundly criticises ++Justin's (and others') broadcasts from kitchens or living rooms as giving out the subliminal message of a final retreat from the public arena into private domesticity, from serving the public to becoming a religious "in-group". I haven't read the whole article as much of it is sadly behind a pay wall - but does he, and the hundreds of signatories to the "Times" letter, have a point?
They've a point but I think it's a bad one. I also think it is unseemly that a retired CofE bishop should have used the Tablet to sound off in. I'm sure the Church Times would have leapt at the opportunity to publish his article if he'd approached them. There was already a correspondence going in its pages. I suspect the editors would already have agreed with him. And retired bishops jump the queue anyway.
The message that church goes on, even if clergy and Archbishops are obeying lockdown as much as everyone else, is a much more important one than any suggestion that there's something especially 'of the public arena' about going into a big building by yourself when no one else is allowed to be there with you.
That would also be feeding the widespread and untenable assumptions that God is dependent on our buildings, and that the Christian faith is primarily about keeping those buildings going.
At its core, is Christian faith primarily about religion or is Jesus about something more fundamental than that.
Here's and article on the subject by a vicar from near the south coast. The more theological stuff is further down the page. And here's another, by Ian Paul. This one is more theological still.
Thanks @Enoch - the first of those articles makes a good point (I haven't checked the other one yet - I've got a slight headache, so will save reading it until later...).
Church does indeed still go on, whether the Vicar is in the building, or not. My preference for online services from 'churchy-looking' places is purely subjective, of course.
I do think there will need to be a new kind of church service too, one which caters for the online visitors as well as the attendees. Probably one which doesn't include holy communion.
It's clear that we're not all going back at the same time, and we'll need to support the people who want to stay home. It's not yet clear to me whether most of those people will want to observe the in-person service via some kind of video link, or continue with our zoom morning prayer. Each has advantages.
I think we'll probably start polling the congregation soon, to see what people want.
(If we do online streaming for our normal service, we'll do communion, and invite the online people to make a spiritual communion.)
I remember a small boy at school saying 'I don't think I'll go to church when I'm older, I can't stand all that singing'. Sounds like that will be one of the last things to return, when churches open up again. It takes me back to the days when the priest used to mumble up at the altar (eastward facing) and the congregation just sat there. Perhaps there will be a certain charm in attending for such ceremonies when we finally start to go back??
Our vicar hosts Zoom services from her house, but puts up a backdrop picture of the inside of the church, which isn’t difficult to do. At the start of the service she replaces this with the words of a hymn and an organist, from his flat, plays the hymn on the piano; everyone else is muted at that point so it’s possible to sing along if you want, while avoiding the time-lag cacophony that Zoom unfortunately produces if people attempt to sing together. We have a rota for readings and intercessions in the rest of the service, the vicar or a Reader preaches, and there’s time for about five minutes at the end to exchange brief news of people and admire everyone’s cute cat or new beard.
That sounds good, Aravis. It's the familiar in an unfamiliar way. Do you think there will be a place for something like it when the buildings are open again? Do others join you who don't usually attend?
There may well be a place for online services once churches reopen, as I suspect that, for the foreseeable future, very few people will wish to attend 'real church' anyway -at least, not until a vaccine is found.
The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
It's also that 'Birthgiver' is not an English word - the standard equivalent is 'Mother' because it is a mother who gives birth to a child. You can't create a portmanteau of 'birth' and 'giver' and claim it as an English word.
There may well be a place for online services once churches reopen, as I suspect that, for the foreseeable future, very few people will wish to attend 'real church' anyway -at least, not until a vaccine is found.
I'm not sure about very few people wishing to attend. Hopefully the most vulnerable won't wish to attend, but I think the rest of us (which, thinking about it won't be that many) will wish to attend, particularly those of a sacramental bent. To my mind, presence is at the heart of sacramental theology and presence in absence just doesn't cut it, however piously one may hope it does. Or rather, presence in absence isn't cutting it, however fervently one may wish it might.
The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
It's also that 'Birthgiver' is not an English word - the standard equivalent is 'Mother' because it is a mother who gives birth to a child. You can't create a portmanteau of 'birth' and 'giver' and claim it as an English word.
The traditional rendering as Godbearer is good enough for us.
"Godbearer" is commonly used to translate a different Greek word: "Theophoros". In Orthodoxy we refer to certain saints as "our reverend and godbearing fathers".
I'm not sure about very few people wishing to attend. Hopefully the most vulnerable won't wish to attend, but I think the rest of us (which, thinking about it won't be that many) will wish to attend, particularly those of a sacramental bent. To my mind, presence is at the heart of sacramental theology and presence in absence just doesn't cut it, however piously one may hope it does. Or rather, presence in absence isn't cutting it, however fervently one may wish it might.
Moving away - if I may - from Orthodoxy, many will have heard of the letter written this week to "The Times" and pleading for clergy to be allowed back into their buildings, if only to stream services (which was specifically permitted by the Government but banned by at least CofE and CinW bishops). This letter also refers to :Peter Selby's article in "The Tablet" in which he roundly criticises ++Justin's (and others') broadcasts from kitchens or living rooms as giving out the subliminal message of a final retreat from the public arena into private domesticity, from serving the public to becoming a religious "in-group". I haven't read the whole article as much of it is sadly behind a pay wall - but does he, and the hundreds of signatories to the "Times" letter, have a point?
It's not a retreat, it's a return to our roots.
This kind of Christian exceptionalism drives me nuts. The advice is designed to keep clergy and congregations safe and well. It also, if our experience is anything to go by, an opportunity to share the Christian message with more people. Rev T's 10 minute YouTube slots are watched by far more people than are in our congregation. He is able to go into church as BU advice is slightly different to the CofE's.
It's not like there aren't opportunities to serve / share God's love or those able to do it - food banks, volunteering with community groups or the NHS etc - which build links within the community and may lead to other opportunities. Rev T is now doing 15 minute prayer slots for elderly care home residents in the US. Three of his regulars have had the virus, are fully recovered and are getting ready to go home.
We're already thinking of how we do church once we're allowed back for those able to attend in person. So far, all we've got is that it'll be very different. More like a home-group, with social distancing, shorter sermons and no singing. Not sure about how Sunday School will work either. We're likely to keep up with the online stuff for those still isolating. [Not sure how enforcing that will work as a few of ours are the worst ... ]
The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
It's also that 'Birthgiver' is not an English word - the standard equivalent is 'Mother' because it is a mother who gives birth to a child. You can't create a portmanteau of 'birth' and 'giver' and claim it as an English word.
Sorry for prolonging the tangent, but yes you can. You can do anything (more or less) with the English language, as Lewis Carroll and G M Hopkins among others have proved. 'Mother of God' is a familiar expression I agree, but avoided by many because it could imply that God didn't exist until Mary brought him to birth. 'Birthgiver', 'Godbearer', while they are unfamiliar and arguably clumsy expressions in English, for that very reason convey the uniqueness of what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the paradox of a created being giving birth to her Creator.
Comments
"What did you do at the weekend?", asked one.
"I went to church yesterday", replied the other.
"Oh, I thought that only dead people went to church".
When growing up, I thought "the meeting" meant the Gospel Hall the "assembly" met in.
And is it descriptive or aspirational?
That's interesting. I grew up in similar circles by the sound of it, but 'the meeting' meant either our gatherings for worship (especially the 'morning meeting' ie 'Worship and Breaking of Bread') or else it meant the Brethren 'denomination' (although we would never admit to being a denomination) so when I first had a boyfriend, my grandma's first question was 'Is he in the meeting?'
The building we met in was just referred to as 'The Hall'
*Early Nonconformist buildings were often converted from other uses, either for economy or because the political situation forced them to be discreet. The wonderful Walpole Old Chapel, now in the care of the Chapels Conservation Trust, is a prime example: it was a farmhouse but had the centre of the upstairs floor removed to make a galleried chapel. (The rest of the floor is held up by metal links radiating from a central wooden column, often said to be part of a ship's mast). Conversely the old Quaker Meeting House in the London suburb where I grew up was purpose built in 1678, but made to look like an ordinary cottage - which it has been ever since the end of the 18th century!
I see it as the service. People assemble there for the service.
The church assembles at the church for church.
Perhaps this is part of the reason the Othodoxen sometimes call the building the “temple,” and would, I’m thinking, only informally speak of the Divine Liturgy or another service as “church.” @mousethief? @Cyprian? @cgichard?
I agree with you about people's reference to "going to church" meaning attendance and participation at the service.
However, I would be wary of drawing too many firm conclusions from common English terminology used by Orthodox people. It is fraught with too many confusing influences. Among them:
1. Converts insisting on using Russian or Greek words for articles that have had perfectly serviceable English names for as long as anybody can remember. (So we can't have a censer or thurible: we must have a kadillah; individual churches that fall outside the jurisdiction of the geographical diocese can't be called peculiars; they must be called stavropegial churches, and so forth.)
2. People whose first language is not English misunderstanding English-language terms and then publishing books and liturgical materials with this misunderstanding, which English converts then see as giving official Orthodox status to this unusual word usage, ("If the cradle Orthodox say it, it must be right, and those damned Protestants must have taught me wrong all my life. I'm going to use this word now to show how Orthodox I am.")
My guess is that at some point, some kindly Russian migrated to the anglophone world and heard people use the word "Lent" to refer to what they knew as "the great fast" and thought that the English word "Lent" must be a direct equivalent to the Russian word "post" (which is actually the word for "fast"). Wanting to blend in to the local culture, the kindly Russian started to refer to "Great Lent". Then it got transferred to other fasting seasons. This is why you hear some Orthodox people talking about the Dormition Lent, the Nativity Lent, and other similar things that make no sense, when what they mean is the Dormition fast, the Nativity fast, and such like. Ask them to translate "Lenten fast" back into Russian and you can actually see their minds exploding.
For me, referring to a Christian church as a temple is a sort of cross between the two: migrant misunderstanding and convert affectation. It's probably best avoided.
Here's a mini-rant from a few years back.
Or do you mean episcopi vagantes? These bishops and their priests and laypeople I have always heard referred to as "vagante" as a singular or mass term or adjective, or "vagantes" as plural.
I've heard Advent called "winter Lent" but that seemed to me to be of the same species as referring to every Sunday as a "little Pascha." An analogy. I've never heard Apostles' Lent or Dormition Lent.
I think "temple" is used because "Church" refers to the whole of Orthodoxy. Having two words for two different things is good because it reduces confusion. The whole schlamiel is the Church. The building is the temple. The local community is the parish or monastic community. Calling them all "church" may be very English but it's also very confusing. I would think a way of reducing unnecessary equivocation would be a good thing. I don't know what the Russian/Greek/Arabic/Whatevs way of reducing this confusion is. Frankly don't care.
There are other Greek or Slavonic words that are used in English conversation (and liturgically) in my experience (I can't vouch for my spelling): Theotokos, plaschanitsa/epitaphion, epitrachelion. The first of these is the only one-word way of saying that in English (the natural English calque would be Godsdam but it's clear why that wouldn't work); the second/third have no English word. The last could easily be called a stole, and there's no reason it isn't that I can think of.
This is all interesting stuff, for sure!
[tangent] The Orthodox usage that always interests me is “serve,” as in “serve the Divine Liturgy.” You don’t often hear that among Western Christians, though I do occasionally hear some of my tribe speak of serving Communion, when they’re clearly using it to mean “celebrating” rather than administering the elements.
[/tangent]
The priest serves the Divine Liturgy. The true celebrant is Christ our High Priest: "the one who offers and is offered" (Prayer before the Great Entrance).
My church family was meeting in a church hall, used also by other groups such as keep-fit classes and children's play sessions. One of the priests who served Liturgy there for us, used to mispronounce "venerable" in the Litany petition for "all those who do good works in this holy and all-venerable House" as "vulnerable" - which has proved all too prescient, as we can no longer meet there.
I held to that for many years, but by about 15-20 years ago the differentiation seemed to have slipped from editorial policies, both in books and journalism
It's perhaps a conceit of certain English converts that I have met. I'm glad to hear this hasn't travelled too far. I learnt the word "kadillah" from the occasion when a priest was barking it at me in the altar, and became frustrated by my blank stare. The priest was English.
You more often find it, in my experience, in the cases of monasteries but there are parishes as well. It's essentially as @Ex_Organist has said. In addition to his good examples, all Western Rite communities in ROCOR are designated as "stavropegial/stavropegic" (I've seen both forms of the word). So those Western Rite communities that exist in Scandinavia are not actually part of the local diocese or under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, despite being on the geographical territory of his diocese. Their bishop is Metropolitan Hilarion of New York.
The English word for this is peculiar and at least in Britain is a generally understood concept in church life, probably because a number of the examples here are famous and are always on our television screens for big events. I'm thinking of the royal peculiars such as Westminster Abbey and the chapels royal but there are other peculiars that are not royal. What makes them peculiars is that they sit geographically within a particular diocese but do not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop of that diocese. Why Orthodox cannot simply use the existing English word, I don't know. But stavropegial seems to be what is preferred.
I envy you. I've seen it written plenty of times. It's been five years since I've had cause to purchase it but this particular publication, despite being excellent in many ways, followed this usage. I don't know about now.
I agree with you and @Nick Tamen that we do place a very heavy burden on the poor shoulders of the word church in English but it seems to work well enough, with the meaning being clear from context most of the time. Forcing a new usage because it makes logical sense just doesn't seem to work practically, but - but - I appreciate that English comes out in the wash differently in different parts of the world.
It's such a widespread language that we sometimes forget this. I had this conversation in my ROCOR days with a fellow ROCORite based in the USA who had been involved in the editing process of the Jordanville liturgical texts, which, while not having any official status beyond having received episcopal blessing just as any other liturgical text, seems the most widely used in that jurisdiction for a number of reasons. He was shocked that most ROCOR communities in the UK at the time didn't use them, but what seemed like natural and beautiful "liturgical" English to the American compilers was something in which the UK communities had little to no interest. So that's something for me to bear in mind the other way round, I suppose.
I've often heard the deacon's orar and priest's epitrachil referred to as stoles, and very rarely the plashchanitsa referred to as the burial shroud. Theotokos is different, I think. It's a theological term that has come down to us in Greek from antiquity, and using it seems to me at least to be different from importing a modern Greek or Slavic word in an attempt to seem more Orthodox. Even so, my personal preference is for Mother of God, or Dei Gentrix as we sing in the lovely Latin hymn.
That explanation, @Ex_Organist is theologically correct but I don't think it's the reason why the term is used.
My understanding (and this is second or possibly third hand) is that the Greek (and I believe the Russian) languages have a verb for what the priest does that directly refers to his role as performing liturgy - liturgy often being poorly defined as "the work of the people" but more properly understood as a work that is done for and on behalf of the whole people - which is why I think service is an excellent English word for what we do in church. The priest is literally performing a service.
English doesn't have a direct equivalent to this verb. I've heard some Orthodox try to express this with the neologism liturgise: Fr George will liturgise on Sunday morning, but "serve the Liturgy", "serve Vespers", &c sounds a little easier on the ear.
That said, I'm very happy to use the common English expression, "offer the Mass".
I do not disagree with you
Peter Selby may have a point, though whether or not it's valid, I wouldn't care to say. Personally, I'm finding that services live-streamed from kitchens/studies/dining-rooms tend to distract me by giving me too many other things to look at - books, furniture, kitchenalia etc. - and I much prefer a service celebrated in a simple 'churchy' private chapel (which might indeed be in a study or other room). But that's just me, and YMMV.
There is indeed some feeling in the C of E that complete closure of the churches was going an unnecessary step too far. Whether this will have any lasting effect remains to be seen - I'm not too convinced by the euphoria over the numbers viewing online worship, and rather cynically doubt if this will be reflected in increased attendances in 'real church'.
I may have mentioned this before, but some churches have at least varied their online worship by including readings, intercessions, and music, from other sources/people/places. This helps, I think, to remove the feeling of being shut up in an 'upper room', and acts as a reminder that the church is made up of lots of different elements, not just the Vicar in his/her dining-room.
Ha ha I agree @Bishops Finger the distractions are many, not least their taste in art. I too prefer a more churchy backdrop.
I wonder what kind of services will be offered once we can return in person. Church being the people at home as well as those attending - as it will have to be for some time, for larger congregations - has to be a new kind of church, doesn’t it?
Except it doesn't mean "Mother of God." It's not Theometer. It's Theotokos.
Not necessarily a new kind of church, perhaps - more a kind of 'dual church'? That is to say, 'real church' alongside 'digital church', IYSWIM.
That's not an impoverishment, but more of an enlargement, or enrichment. Or it could be...
I wonder what the copyright/privacy implications might be of filming (say) the usual Sunday service in church, and making it available online to those who couldn't be there in person? Presumably some churches do this already, but I would guess that any filming would have to have the consent of EVERYBODY present...
Surely not, if only the 'business end' of the service were shown? The voices of the congregation wouldn't be heard as there won't be any singing for a while. Maybe a cough or two. I'm sure an announcement at the beginning would be enough, so that people were aware it was being filmed. It could be livestreamed every week, with the option for playback on line later. Then everyone who couldn't attend that week could still do so virtually.
I do think there will need to be a new kind of church service too, one which caters for the online visitors as well as the attendees. Probably one which doesn't include holy communion.
But music is another big issue. Unless hymns (text and tune), anthems, etc. are in the public domain, appropriate licensing fees need to be paid or permission from the copyright holders otherwise obtained. In the US, there are various licenses that can be purchased that cover a wide swath of hymns and other music, and I assume there are similar licenses elsewhere. We’ve been careful at our place to ensure that we’re only singing hymns that are in the public domain or are covered by the license we’ve bought.
We do plan to keep a streaming option available when this is all over, as we’ll still have shut-ins and others who can’t get to church for whatever reason. But it will require installation of more permanent (and discrete) cameras and mics.
The translation of the Liturgy by Fr Andrew Phillips (to which I had some minor editorial contributions) renders it as "Birthgiver of God", which I like. It's just that "Mother of God" is so commonly used to refer to her in English that it seems a fair approximation for what it is.
They've a point but I think it's a bad one. I also think it is unseemly that a retired CofE bishop should have used the Tablet to sound off in. I'm sure the Church Times would have leapt at the opportunity to publish his article if he'd approached them. There was already a correspondence going in its pages. I suspect the editors would already have agreed with him. And retired bishops jump the queue anyway.
The message that church goes on, even if clergy and Archbishops are obeying lockdown as much as everyone else, is a much more important one than any suggestion that there's something especially 'of the public arena' about going into a big building by yourself when no one else is allowed to be there with you.
That would also be feeding the widespread and untenable assumptions that God is dependent on our buildings, and that the Christian faith is primarily about keeping those buildings going.
At its core, is Christian faith primarily about religion or is Jesus about something more fundamental than that.
Here's and article on the subject by a vicar from near the south coast. The more theological stuff is further down the page. And here's another, by Ian Paul. This one is more theological still.
Church does indeed still go on, whether the Vicar is in the building, or not. My preference for online services from 'churchy-looking' places is purely subjective, of course.
It's clear that we're not all going back at the same time, and we'll need to support the people who want to stay home. It's not yet clear to me whether most of those people will want to observe the in-person service via some kind of video link, or continue with our zoom morning prayer. Each has advantages.
I think we'll probably start polling the congregation soon, to see what people want.
(If we do online streaming for our normal service, we'll do communion, and invite the online people to make a spiritual communion.)
It's also that 'Birthgiver' is not an English word - the standard equivalent is 'Mother' because it is a mother who gives birth to a child. You can't create a portmanteau of 'birth' and 'giver' and claim it as an English word.
A vaccine to protect one from church? Hmm ...
The traditional rendering as Godbearer is good enough for us.
We shall have to wait and see.
It's not a retreat, it's a return to our roots.
This kind of Christian exceptionalism drives me nuts. The advice is designed to keep clergy and congregations safe and well. It also, if our experience is anything to go by, an opportunity to share the Christian message with more people. Rev T's 10 minute YouTube slots are watched by far more people than are in our congregation. He is able to go into church as BU advice is slightly different to the CofE's.
It's not like there aren't opportunities to serve / share God's love or those able to do it - food banks, volunteering with community groups or the NHS etc - which build links within the community and may lead to other opportunities. Rev T is now doing 15 minute prayer slots for elderly care home residents in the US. Three of his regulars have had the virus, are fully recovered and are getting ready to go home.
We're already thinking of how we do church once we're allowed back for those able to attend in person. So far, all we've got is that it'll be very different. More like a home-group, with social distancing, shorter sermons and no singing. Not sure about how Sunday School will work either. We're likely to keep up with the online stuff for those still isolating. [Not sure how enforcing that will work as a few of ours are the worst ... ]
Sorry for prolonging the tangent, but yes you can. You can do anything (more or less) with the English language, as Lewis Carroll and G M Hopkins among others have proved. 'Mother of God' is a familiar expression I agree, but avoided by many because it could imply that God didn't exist until Mary brought him to birth. 'Birthgiver', 'Godbearer', while they are unfamiliar and arguably clumsy expressions in English, for that very reason convey the uniqueness of what happened when Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the paradox of a created being giving birth to her Creator.