Evangelical Congregations ?
Some days ago I was taking part in a virtual ecumenical discussion and prayer group.
The group has met for some 25 years and we rarely discuss our religious differences, concentrating most of the time on what unites us - Jesus Christ.
However this time for some reason or another an Anglican/Episcopalian member of the group suddenly said , 'You know what I don't like about Evangelicals, - they always think that they are right and everyone else is wrong'.
I thought this was somewhat amusing, as the group is hosted by the Catholic Church who are also said to say that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It is also the case that a significant number of members of the group are Evangelicals who are not Anglican but members of the sort of independent stand alone evangelical communities and who might not have understood the word 'Evangelical' in the same way as Anglicans.
However it did make me think about the differences in understanding of the meanings of words which Christian communities use. this surfaced also in discussion on an other thread about 'Evangelicals' and 'worship'
About 50 years ago those who regularly attended worship in a Catholic church would have described themselves as 'parishioners', while those who attended a Church of Scotland charge would have described themselves as the' congregation'.
In Catholicspeak at that time 'congregation' would generally have had a different meaning.
Nowadays I often hear the word 'congregation' used also in a Catholic context for the people who come to a certain religious service in a church.
'Service' itself is another word which can be understood in different ways by different Christians.
There can also be real difficulties in translating words which are current in religious language into another language.
The usual word for a Christian religious service in French is 'la messe' (the Mass) but I used to smile a long time ago when French radio or TV would talk during the troubles in Northern Ireland of 'la messe' in the church of Ian Paisley.
Are there any other words or expressions of this sort which people notice ?
The group has met for some 25 years and we rarely discuss our religious differences, concentrating most of the time on what unites us - Jesus Christ.
However this time for some reason or another an Anglican/Episcopalian member of the group suddenly said , 'You know what I don't like about Evangelicals, - they always think that they are right and everyone else is wrong'.
I thought this was somewhat amusing, as the group is hosted by the Catholic Church who are also said to say that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It is also the case that a significant number of members of the group are Evangelicals who are not Anglican but members of the sort of independent stand alone evangelical communities and who might not have understood the word 'Evangelical' in the same way as Anglicans.
However it did make me think about the differences in understanding of the meanings of words which Christian communities use. this surfaced also in discussion on an other thread about 'Evangelicals' and 'worship'
About 50 years ago those who regularly attended worship in a Catholic church would have described themselves as 'parishioners', while those who attended a Church of Scotland charge would have described themselves as the' congregation'.
In Catholicspeak at that time 'congregation' would generally have had a different meaning.
Nowadays I often hear the word 'congregation' used also in a Catholic context for the people who come to a certain religious service in a church.
'Service' itself is another word which can be understood in different ways by different Christians.
There can also be real difficulties in translating words which are current in religious language into another language.
The usual word for a Christian religious service in French is 'la messe' (the Mass) but I used to smile a long time ago when French radio or TV would talk during the troubles in Northern Ireland of 'la messe' in the church of Ian Paisley.
Are there any other words or expressions of this sort which people notice ?
Comments
By the way I had a Methodist friend from Yorkshire who (c.1975) was invited to tea in Glasgow by some strict Scottish Evangelical Christians. They asked him, "So what church do you go to" and he replied, "Oh, I don't go to church, I go to the chapel". They nearly threw him out as, to them, "chapel" meant "Roman Catholic".
Indeed that 'church' is a 'chapel' Chapelle de Notre Dame de Bon Port, but I am not sure in which way my Glaswegian understood the word 'chapel'.
"Mission" in Orthodox parlance usually refers to a local worshiping body (future parish) that is not yet self-supporting and gets material help from the diocese.
Cities and towns in England used to be simply awash with 'Missions' - not only from the C of E, but from just about everyone else as well! Some made it to parish (or equivalent) status, but many faded away after a few years.
St X's was independent, albeit founded by a practising Anglican, even though the local parish church had, some years before, set up its own Mission not a hundred yards up the road! St X's survived until comparatively recently - the 'other Mission' was already closed (and used as a shop) by the time I moved to that street in nineteen-sixty-mumble mumble...
In the Philippines and some other parts of the world Christians are divided into 'Catholics' and 'Christians' Neither names are meant to be disparaging of the other. It is simply meant to describe the two groups.
I think, however, that this would be an unusual way of distinguishing groups of Christians in the UK and the USA, unless one wished to imply that one group was not in fact Christian.
The other day I heard an Evangelical (not an Anglican Evangelical this time) say that there were only two Christians ,(mentioning them by name ) in the Scottish Parliament. I don't actually know the religious allegiance of many of the MSPs but I do think that there are more than two who would describe themselves as Christian.
Seriously, though, surely that kind of fruitloopery is dying out (or should be...).
Maybe one of the side-effects of Covid-19 might be a blurring of the boundaries between Christian groupings?
No. Its water off a ducks back to be honest.
We have seen how the following words can be understood differently by various people, so far : 'evangelical', ' congregation', 'worship', mission' 'Christian'.
Are there any others ?
URC/Methodist/Baptist Ministers, Independent Church Pastors, Anglican Vicars and Roman Catholic Priests but did not also cover URC Elders. I cannot think of one without drawbacks due to different understandings . While I know there are differences our understanding of what role the person is playing I still see enough commonality to want a noun that covers the whole lot of them pretty well.
In some cases the titles are a mark of denominational affiliation (eg URC). In others they are a mark of core beliefs (Pentecostal). Often they are both (Baptists may or may not be linked to a Baptist denomination but are baptistic in belief). However there are also the breadth and height of theological and liturgical positions (Evangelical, Ritualist) and of polity (Anglican). All these means we get a complex Venn diagram of terms.
For instance I could describe myself as an ecumenically-minded, fairly liberal and "High Church" Baptist ... YMMV.
Along the same lines, I don't like hearing the Roman Catholic Church described as 'The Universal Church', or 'The Church Universal', etc.
It ain't. There are Others™...
This seems like a misunderstanding to me. "The Catholic faith" to me refers to that which is common to all Christians, what others call "Mere Christianity". Now, certainly the RCC go a bit further than I would in defining what is essential, but I think the goal is the same. Catholic, after all, means something like "universal".
There’s also “sanctuary,” which can mean either the space immediately around the altar or the entire building/worship space. I sometimes see this described as a Pond difference on the Ship, as in “sanctuary in the American sense.” But it’s really a denominational/tradition difference, as both senses are used in the US (and, I think, in the UK), breaking along church tradition lines.
When I hear Catholics speak of “the Catholic Faith,” it inevitably is used to mean “the faith as held and taught by the Catholic Church,” not as “the Christian faith common to all.” YMMV.
Thunderbunk nicely defined it 'as all who own the faith of Jesus' but what again is the 'faith of Jesus' ?
On this thread we can only say that the term 'Catholic' or indeed 'catholic' means, when heard ,different things to different people
Similarly I wouldn't get all defensive if a Baptist talked about their faith when it came to the teachings of their church, or a Methodist etc.
I suspect its more common than we would like to think.
Just as "Evangelical" does.
As someone who reads the bible and tries to live their life according to it I could (if I were feeling all defensive and prickly) take exception to others claiming the term "Evangelical" for themselves.
But life's too short.
Two further words which intrigue me are
1. sermon and homily
Before Vatican 2 most Catholics would have talked about a sermon. Since then the word 'homily' has come into fashion. It is an old word in the English language. By the word I usually understand a talk given by a preacher explaining the Readings of the Day, in particular the Gospel. By a sermon I would understand a general talk on some point of
religious doctrine. I think that most Catholics would generally use the word 'sermon' but do other Christians use the word 'homily' ?
2. celebrant
Catholics talk about the celebration of Mass and the priest is the celebrant
Do other Christians use the word 'celebrant' in this way ?
I think that Presbyterians use the expression 'celebration of the Lord's Supper but would they describe the presiding minister as the 'celebrant' ?
At least here in Scotland the word 'celebrant' has fairly recently come into general use as the word for the person who conducts a non-religious wedding or funeral. I suspect that many people in the general population would not know the expression 'celebrant of the Mass.
Don't some Anglicans refer to "presiders" or "presidents?"
Some Anglican settings too. I seem to recall it was the order of service for baptisms at the main service that named it thus when I was little.
Homily I think of two things - a mini-sermon at a mid-week or evening communion service or the gargantuan treatises published for use in public worship after the English reformation to make up for perceived theological shortcomings among the clergy.
I'm even less sure though why so many Anglicans seem to use the word 'homily' to refer to a mini-sermon, not necessarily related to the scriptures, at a midweek service or similar occasion. 'Sermon' is the term used by Common Worship and the implication is that this is the same thing that Catholics call a homily.
Many less liturgically-inclined Anglicans (especially evangelicals) seem to prefer the word 'talk'. That seems (to me at least) to trivialise what is one of the key ways in which God speaks to us and we meet God.
The word change to homily was a deliberate step to make the point that the preacher's job is to explain the readings, not to bang on about whatever is in his head, be it the state of the church roof, or the appaling state of things in general or devotion to Our Lady of the Fire Extinguisher. The homily is seen as an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word. At their ordinations the first duty mentioned each time they are listed is to preach the Word. The change to homily is significant.
As used among my people (American Presbyterians), a homily would generally be a short, less in-depth sermon—a meditation, “sermon-lite,” or “mini-sermon,” as @Arethosemyfeet describes it. To be honest, I think many of us have lower expectations for homilies than for sermons.
That said, I know a few Presby ministers who favor the term “homily” over “sermon,” though I’m not sure why. And all of our seminarians study homiletics in seminary.
We would indeed speak of “celebration” of the Lord’s Supper (or Communion or the Eucharist), but the presiding minister would be called just that, not the celebrant. Or, she might be said to “lead” Communion. Our ecclesiology is that the congregation celebrates, with the minister presiding (or leading) on its behalf.
I do hear “officiant” or “officiate” from time to time, but mainly with regard to weddings and, maybe, funerals.
Our ecclesiology is the same. The whole assembly representing the Body of Christ celebrates the Eucharist, the priest leads and consecrates. That is his particular role in the celebration, I as a musician also have a role, so do the readers and servers and assistants at communion - many parts, one body.
Where our ecclesiology is different is that we wouldn’t speak of the minister as being the one who consecrates, which may be what I was getting at by noting we wouldn’t refer to the minister as the celebrant.
A talk that is shorter than how long the congregation in question expects a sermon to be is sometimes called a reflection.
'President' is normal current CofE usage for the person who actually presides at the eucharist. That's because it's the phrase used in Common Worship. 'Celebrant' is quite a widespread alternative, and I wouldn't regard it as any sort of marker.
When I use ‘address’ (usually weddings and funerals) it is because I hope it gives the uninitiated a better idea of what to expect than either ‘sermon’ or ‘homily’ does.
I always find a dead giveaway (reference to the Vicar of Dibley purely coincidental) is "message." If, when I used to do greet at the door week by week, an enthusiastic stranger pumped my hand in a testosterony way and quoth "nice message, pastor" I was sure I wouldn't see them (despite the testosterone that was slightly gender non-specific) again.
That was possibly an era of training thing ... I did my theological training in the mid-80s and the backlash against "celebrant" ("we are all ...") was in full swing. "President" however was tainted by memories, even in OZ, of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the neologism "presider/presidor" soon grew popular in its place.
If many more sacramentally focused traditions feel English Nonconformity, and similar traditions have a weak understanding of the efficacious nature of the sacraments then please also understand that when they look at you often feel you have a weak understanding of the efficacious nature of the sermon.
Which sent me looking at my tribe’s liturgies. All that I looked at up through the liturgies in the 2013 hymnal use “the minister.” But in the 2018 Book of Common Wordhip, it becomes “the presider.”
I propose "ceremaniac" as a suitable term.
Said official was really a sort of Master of Ceremonies, and usually (but not necessarily) a lay person, AIUI.
I thought those were neurotic potters.
That would be a ceramaniac.
Ah yes.
'President' makes sense to me: one who presides. I also like the well-established 'Celebrant.'
But here in the USA, a word can't mean two things, so 'President' sounds too political, and 'Celebrant' is out of favor because aren't we all celebrating?
So we have to employ the back-formation 'Presider' even though 'President' has always been a perfectly logical word for that.
I'll not get into what I think about another back-formation, 'proCESS' as the verb form of 'procession', when the existing 'proceed' should work just fine.
viz
proceed (vb intrans) = go forwards.
'process (vb trans) (stress on first syllable) = carry out a process on, e.g. food, a person's job application etc.
pro'cess (vb intrans) (stress on second syllable) = go in a stately manner as in a procession.
It's the middle of those that's slightly irregular. Where a noun and a verb are otherwise pronounced the same, the more regular pattern is for the stress to shift down the word for the verb, e.g. perfect, project, annex, etc. The same phenomenon produces the difference between calf and calve.
Reasonable and well argued! Thanks for that.
Well, yes. If there ever an 'ideal' church - and such a thing does not exist - I'd suggest it should combine non-conformist style sermons with some sacramentalist ceremonial.
Getting the balance right would be the tricky part.