I think it became known during the 60s. The rationale I was given is that the priest is the host at the meal, and hosts eat last. I've never warmed to the idea. To my mind Christ is the host, and I need to be strengthened by him before I can take him to others.
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed. Personally not fussed as long as everyone participates in the same meal. The celebrant has to consume for that to be the case and first or last are the easy places for them to do that. When the serving becomes elaborate as though there are different statuses at the table my Nonconformist hackles start to rise.
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed.
Yes, this is the understanding I'm familiar with. And it is coupled with serving one another. That is why the minister never serves herself, but is served by another. And where communion in the pews is still the norm, people typically serve the person sitting next to them before communing themselves.
The idea that the minister is "host" would be totally foreign to our understanding. Our liturgies are usually explicit in saying that Christ is the host.
In the moribund days of the C18th an Anglican priest went to take a service of Holy Communion for a long neglected rural congregation. He wrote that the the first parishoner took the chalice and said, 'Here's to your very good health.' And the next parishoner took the chalice and said, 'Here's to the health of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed. Personally not fussed as long as everyone participates in the same meal. The celebrant has to consume for that to be the case and first or last are the easy places for them to do that. When the serving becomes elaborate as though there are different statuses at the table my Nonconformist hackles start to rise.
Whereas for me, coming from an Anglican background to a fairly old fashioned Church of Scotland congregation one of the things that struck me about communion was the separation of the elders and minister from the people, that they gather around the table and share the common cup and only then dish out the wee cuppies to those in the pews. I doubt it's intentional that it comes across that way, just a matter of habits accreting over a century or so.
Yes, it raises my English Nonconformist hackles a lot more than a priest quietly partaking before the rest of the congregation comes up in an Anglican said mass. The first seems an ostentatious statement of the hierarchy while the second can be seen as very much a practical rubric.
However, you are going to have to excuse me if I go no further on this, I am aware that I am walking myself into the temptation to make sharp comments based on past hurt.
I think in the more protestant traditions the idea is more that the minister is a servant of the congregation and servants eat after they have made sure others are fed. Personally not fussed as long as everyone participates in the same meal. The celebrant has to consume for that to be the case and first or last are the easy places for them to do that. When the serving becomes elaborate as though there are different statuses at the table my Nonconformist hackles start to rise.
Whereas for me, coming from an Anglican background to a fairly old fashioned Church of Scotland congregation one of the things that struck me about communion was the separation of the elders and minister from the people, that they gather around the table and share the common cup and only then dish out the wee cuppies to those in the pews. I doubt it's intentional that it comes across that way, just a matter of habits accreting over a century or so.
That's very interesting that the ministers and elders use the common cup and the congregation gets the wee cuppies. I don't think I've ever seen that—I always see either wee cuppies for everyone or chalices only. I can imagine that comes across in a less than edifying way.
Coming forward for communion seems to be becoming much more popular in my corner of the Presby-verse. In our congregation, we do pew communion with wee cuppies twice a year. The other dozen+ times, the congregation comes forward.
Ye wee cuppies are late Victorian innovation. My senior warden who was raised Presbyterian, as a substitute for German Reformed, tells me she had trouble as a kid keeping a straight face as all the wee cupppies went into the little holders for the empties on the back of the pews - thunk-thunk-thunkthunkthunk….thunk. That said, I seem to recall being taught that back in the day the Presbyterians, and the Reformed in general used a large Communion Cup or several which were passed around the congregation with the elders and deacons supervising before the wee cups came into fashion.
Anglicanism is not completely adverse to the practice of communion in your seat. It was the practice at one time (as late as the 19th century, I believe) at Christ Church, Oxford. I think it was current as late as Dr Pusey's time as Canon and Hebrew Professor.
Besides, the celebrant's reception of the Host is the server's cue to ring the bell that lets the people know it's time for them to go to the altar rail.
...which would be shortly followed by me jumping so high I nearly knock the chalice over. I never have been noted for my ability to tolerate sudden loud noises.
Ye wee cuppies are late Victorian innovation. . . . That said, I seem to recall being taught that back in the day the Presbyterians, and the Reformed in general used a large Communion Cup or several which were passed around the congregation with the elders and deacons supervising before the wee cups came into fashion.
Indeed, the introduction of wee cuppies, fueled by the discovery of germs, was met with great (but ultimately ineffective) resistance by General Assemblies on both sides of The Pond, as I recall. But at least in some places, the pendulum is starting to swing back—if for no other reason than the realization, as celebrations of Communion become more frequent, that use of chalices makes preparation and clean-up much easier.
Besides, the celebrant's reception of the Host is the server's cue to ring the bell that lets the people know it's time for them to go to the altar rail.
I must admit that I have never encountered such a bell in any church of any variety. In every church I’ve ever been in where people go forward, either ushers appear in the aisle to regulate as it were the movement, or people simply know when to move forward.
I'm a bit caught up with all the posts, but obviously various parishes/churches have reached different procedures for a range of reasons. What is interesting is that for some of us the reason is practical but others have a theological basis for their practice - with arguments each way. Which tends to suggest that there is in fact no killer argument at all.
Indeed, the introduction of wee cuppies, fueled by the discovery of germs, was met with great (but ultimately ineffective) resistance by General Assemblies on both sides of The Pond, as I recall. But at least in some places, the pendulum is starting to swing back—if for no other reason than the realization, as celebrations of Communion become more frequent, that use of chalices makes preparation and clean-up much easier.
More frequent celebrations of communion? Yes. Hmm. Maybe in some places... 4 times a year here.
Well just to say at my current church (Anglican) the practice is as Oblatus states. There is also bell ringing at the start of the epiclesis and during the dominical words.
Well just to say at my current church (Anglican) the practice is as Oblatus states. There is also bell ringing at the start of the epiclesis and during the dominical words.
As also happens at Our Place.
My irreverent mind always thinks of Pavlov's Dogs, as the bell rings, and the Faithful rise...
Gee "What is interesting is that for some of us the reason is practical but others have a theological basis for their practice - with arguments each way."
My suspicion is that for most (all?) liturgical practices the practical reason came first, and the theological explanation a while later. Several years ago I was taking a Remembrance Service, and noticed halfway through that the altar candles hadn't been lit. Rather than draw attention to the fact I left them as they were. Later I had comments about the poignant symbolism of unlit, or extinguished, candles for Remembrance.
It was Origen who came up with the idea that churches should face East towards the rising sun as a reminder of the Resurrection. The two candles on the altar are seen as symbols of the two natures of Christ. I think the theology and practice of faith are in constant dialogue together, each informing the other. I enjoy living in a symbolic world.
Indeed, the introduction of wee cuppies, fueled by the discovery of germs, was met with great (but ultimately ineffective) resistance by General Assemblies on both sides of The Pond, as I recall. But at least in some places, the pendulum is starting to swing back—if for no other reason than the realization, as celebrations of Communion become more frequent, that use of chalices makes preparation and clean-up much easier.
More frequent celebrations of communion? Yes. Hmm. Maybe in some places... 4 times a year here.
I was thinking there primarily of my tribe (on the the occidental side of The Pond). At least monthly is the norm here. This is a shift from 50 years ago, when quarterly was the norm.
Sorry for the double post, but it occurred to me to add that aside from practical reasons being the origin of any given practice, there's always another possibility—they do it that way, so we must not do it that way so that it's clear we are not them.
Theological or symbolic explanations may be closer to the genesis in such cases, but they're mixed in with considerations of identity.
You do see that happening as early as the C1-2 Didache - Christians should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays so that they are not confused 'with the hypocrites.'
Rublev: "It was Origen who came up with the idea that churches should face East towards the rising sun as a reminder of the Resurrection. The two candles on the altar are seen as symbols of the two natures of Christ."
The first idea was, I thought, a lot earlier Origen. I thought it was there in the Didache, but it's been quite a while since I read it.
The explanation for the two candles is completely new to me. I'm afraid that does sound like a pious gloss on something that was probably purely practical in origin.
The earliest Christian churches didn't have a particular orientation. It come from Origen who was a very creative theologian.
In the archaeological record of the UK you can identify the spread of Christianity from the evidence of the C6-7th cemeteries. The pagan Anglo-Saxons buried their dead with grave goods. But the Christian Anglo-Saxons buried their dead in a shroud and oriented E-W so they were ready to meet Christ at the resurrection.
@Nick Tamen - I was slight amused/alarmed when I was reading through the old Evangelical and Reformed (E&R) Church liturgy yesterday to find a rubric requiring them to celebrate the Lord's Supper twice a year. I guess that may have been to hold the Rs feet to the fire! Their general practice was monthly - old E churches; or quarterly - old R churches.
I think most denominations have undergone an increase in the frequency of celebration in the last sixty years. In 1960 most PECUSA shacks had communion every week, but it was the main act of worship only once or twice a month. These days it would be considered unusual for a TEC parish to have anything other than HC as the main service.
Firstly humans are symbol-using animals. Just look at how we use language. Semiotics, the study of the structure of language actually means the study of signs.
Second an anecdote. Many moons ago I was one of two leaders for a house group and one week we were discussing communion. One member who was a trained preacher talked about how the taking off of the white cloth before communion from the elements represented the rolling away of the stone from the tomb on Easter morning. We all listened to the detailed way she explained the symbolism and were quite moved by it.
Then the Church Secretary spoke, "Do you want to know why we really have white cloths on the elements which we remove before communion?"
There was a general agreement that we did
"To stop plaster falling onto the elements" he replied.
That is not to say theology was not relevant to that action. The Church Secretary had changed who took the cloths off. Before he became Church Secretary this had always been the Church Secretary, but he felt this was hierarchical and not in keeping with the priesthood of all believers. So he had got Elders meeting to change it so it was one of the serving elders.
Rublev: "It was Origen who came up with the idea that churches should face East towards the rising sun as a reminder of the Resurrection. The two candles on the altar are seen as symbols of the two natures of Christ."
The first idea was, I thought, a lot earlier Origen. I thought it was there in the Didache, but it's been quite a while since I read it.
Earlier and later. The idea of facing a particular direction to pray predates Jesus—Jews faced Jerusalem to pray, which for many was East. Christians adopted the practice, with the idea of looking East as looking toward the rising sun and the Second Coming. Origen didn't so much come up with the idea as acknowledge what was an established practice for Christians when praying. (And Origen seems to say that the reason wasn't known anymore.)
As for church building, that followed on from the practice of facing east to pray. But it really wasn't much of an issue until Christianity was legalized.
Ugh, I hate the wee cuppies. Now that I think back on it, that was a big subconscious factor in my giving up on the local Lutheran church. I'm not too keen on intinction either but then I'm used to receiving everything on a common spoon from a common chalice.
Firstly humans are symbol-using animals. Just look at how we use language. Semiotics, the study of the structure of language actually means the study of signs.
Second an anecdote. Many moons ago I was one of two leaders for a house group and one week we were discussing communion. One member who was a trained preacher talked about how the taking off of the white cloth before communion from the elements represented the rolling away of the stone from the tomb on Easter morning. We all listened to the detailed way she explained the symbolism and were quite moved by it.
Then the Church Secretary spoke, "Do you want to know why we really have white cloths on the elements which we remove before communion?"
There was a general agreement that we did
"To stop plaster falling onto the elements" he replied.
That is not to say theology was not relevant to that action. The Church Secretary had changed who took the cloths off. Before he became Church Secretary this had always been the Church Secretary, but he felt this was hierarchical and not in keeping with the priesthood of all believers. So he had got Elders meeting to change it so it was one of the serving elders.
A fine example of the knack practical ceremonial acts have of picking up a symbolism quite different from their practical function. I am like the Church Secretary though - I tend to be the one who knows the practical use of things.
And the practical reasons can vary. Here, the elements were "decently covered" with a white cloth to keep the flies off.
As for the trained preacher who said that taking off the white cloth represented the rolling away of the stone from the tomb on Easter morning, one wonders what she made of once again covering the elements with the white cloth after Communion was finished. (Or maybe that was only done here.)
When I was a curate I was told by the flower arranger that only white and yellow flowers were allowed in the sanctuary. So I asked the vicar the reason for it. And he said that was nonsense but it was probably what she had been told by her predecessor 6 vicars before.
I had to deal with the "we have to have flowers" mythology when I first came here. At some point we had a group discussion on it, and we now have flowers on the major feasts, and when someone donates them. As a result people notice them, and they have become a sort of treat.
Another thing that has happened is that we have decluttered the church (U.S. sanctuary) so things like the removable shelves that go in the window bottoms to support Christmas decorations are now put away rather than being left out all year long. We also got rid of the curtain along the inside of the old choir gallery balustrade that hid the previous congregations sound equipment, and incidentally kept daylight out of the centre of the building.
The next thing to be taken in hand is the lighting. The previous owners seemed to think that you need the same light level to read a hymnbook as you need to perform neurosurgery, so the wattage of the overhead lights is far too high, and only possible thanks to the use of "industrial strength" compact florescent bulbs. I have been studying the architect's original (1925) lighting scheme, and it was far less aggressive.
One of the funny stories about the previous congregation is that they never had communion on Christmas because the area around the altar was always occupied by two enormous Christmas trees which must have been 18' tall if they were an inch. In later time they used a free standing table for communion, but prior to about 1995, the trees precluded Communion!
Gee "What is interesting is that for some of us the reason is practical but others have a theological basis for their practice - with arguments each way."
My suspicion is that for most (all?) liturgical practices the practical reason came first, and the theological explanation a while later. Several years ago I was taking a Remembrance Service, and noticed halfway through that the altar candles hadn't been lit. Rather than draw attention to the fact I left them as they were. Later I had comments about the poignant symbolism of unlit, or extinguished, candles for Remembrance.
We'll have to work hard on it and catch up with a theological argument then. Seriously though, there's a lot of common sense in your post and more than a grain of truth.
Is there a "right" way to do a funeral? I was at one recently that seemed unusual to me. The burial took place earlier in the morning and a memorial service at the church followed. It seemed to me to be a great way to do it. The family had been close together to say 'goodbye' at the grave, and then came to church for what my wife described as the noisiest funeral we'd ever been to. It was a cheerful occasion with good singing, good preaching, and eulogies celebrating a much loved man who had died in his nineties. I thought it was a good way to go.
Is there a "right" way to do a funeral? I was at one recently that seemed unusual to me. The burial took place earlier in the morning and a memorial service at the church followed. It seemed to me to be a great way to do it. The family had been close together to say 'goodbye' at the grave, and then came to church for what my wife described as the noisiest funeral we'd ever been to. It was a cheerful occasion with good singing, good preaching, and eulogies celebrating a much loved man who had died in his nineties. I thought it was a good way to go.
Burial with family and close friends attending, followed by a memorial service* at the church is a common way to do things around here, and least among Presbyterians and some other religious groups. It's what we did with both of my parents** and with my mother's parents. I wouldn't go so far as to say the services were noisy or particularly cheerful, though. Confident and hopeful, rather. (And certainly no eulogies.)
As cremation becomes more common, I'm also used to services where the urn with the ashes may or may not be present in the church, with interment of the ashes at a later date.
* I was taught that it's a "funeral" if the body of the deceased is present, and a "memorial service" if the body is not present.
** Well, it's what we intended to do with my father, but the ground was frozen and the cemetery folks couldn't dig the hole. We went back to the cemetery the next day (Sunday) immediately after church.
This is (almost) what we organised for the late Mr Ll. The only thing I knew was that he wished to be cremated; the rest I had to make up as I went along.
The crematorium Chapel was too small for the number of people expected. To hold the service in Church followed by family going to the crematorium (not close by) for the committal would have meant missing people who had, in some cases, travelled for hours to attend. So we had a service for family in the morning at the crematorium followed by a memorial service in 'our' Church in the afternoon. Family had lunch together in between, which allowed us to catch up and talk about him together and we had tea for everyone at the end of the afternoon. It wasn't cheerful, exactly, but there was indeed "good singing [and] good preaching".
It depends who the person was. 'Doing it right' felt like the last thing I could do for him, but 'right' will vary from person to person.
The crematorium Chapel was too small for the number of people expected. To hold the service in Church followed by family going to the crematorium (not close by) for the committal would have meant missing people who had, in some cases, travelled for hours to attend. So we had a service for family in the morning at the crematorium followed by a memorial service in 'our' Church in the afternoon.
I know this has been talked about before, but I think it might be worth mentioning again in this context: Services at the crematorium don't happen here, unless the crematorium happens to be attached to what we call the "funeral home" (mortuary). Funeral homes typically do have chapels, but a service there is an alternative to a church service. The norm here (though as with so many things, traditions are changing) is a service at the church, the funeral home or perhaps some other venue, with committal—burial or disposition of ashes—either prior to or sometime after the service.
This is a question for almost every church funeral I take, as we can no longer bury people in the churchyard, and the crem is a little way away. There isn't an easy answer, but I'm inclining to: church service, reasonable gap for wake, then committal at crem. Obviously, I do my best to make whatever the family want work for them.
Yes. Most crematoria that I have encountered (England) are local authority owned/managed, and have chapel(s) attached, as are and do most public cemeteries.
American style funeral homes are (almost) unknown here, I think, although funeral directors usually have what is called a ‘chapel of rest’ where the body of the deceased may be viewed.
I have yet to do a funeral here, but I have noted that the crematory (as Americans seem to call it) is next door but one to the church. Their gas metre is of impressive dimensions - far bigger than the church's, and we have a heating plant that looks like the boiler out of a trawler!
Recent funerals, family and others, have begun with the committal, then a service in church to celebrate the life of the deceased. I think this works particularly well if they have lived a long life, not died prematurely. The same families have also discouraged the wearing of black.
If I may return to Holy Communion practices, are there any Methodists out there who can explain to me the tradition of serving communion in “ tables”? ie a group of people come up to receive, sufficient to fill the space available, but wait for a prayer of dismissal before returning to their seats.
It is not as if there must always be twelve, as in the Last Supper. I fail to see the significance of this practice, and find it strange.
If I may return to Holy Communion practices, are there any Methodists out there who can explain to me the tradition of serving communion in “ tables”? ie a group of people come up to receive, sufficient to fill the space available, but wait for a prayer of dismissal before returning to their seats.
It is not as if there must always be twelve, as in the Last Supper. I fail to see the significance of this practice, and find it strange.
I’m not a Methodist, but service by tables has a long history in Presbyterian churches, though I don’t see it very often anymore. My understanding it is a relic of the days (at least in Reformed practice) when everyone would have actually sat at table—either coming in groups to sit at the one Communion table, or sitting at tables set up throughout the church. One can still find a church here and there in these parts where the Communion table is long and has benches or seats.
The significance has to do with underscoring the communal aspect of the Sacrament as a meal. That is, we sit (or stand or kneel) together just as we would sit together for a meal, not each coming as space opens up and going as soon as we each are done.
FWIW, I’ve encountered service by tables in Lutheran churches, too.
Funerals here are typically "from the house" or "from the church" but are almost invariably conducted by a minister and are followed by burial at one of the two remaining cemeteries on the island (both close to chapels that are now ruined). With no facility on the island for refrigeration of bodies a death is followed fairly promptly by the coffining, with the minister and family (and sometimes elders) in attendance. The coffin usually then rests either at home or in a church until the day of the funeral (usually no more than 2 or 3 days, for obvious reasons) and is thereafter conveyed immediately for burial. It is common for most people attending the funeral to also attend the burial, with the elders and family members assisting in lowering the coffin into the grave. If someone dies away then they may be cremated and their ashes returned for burial, or the body may return and be conveyed straight to the funeral. In either case the custom is for at least some of the elders to meet the remains at the ferry as escort them to their destination.
@Nick Tamen - you can add Low Church Episcopal/Anglican congregations in Virginia to the list. There are several around here that still do communion by tables - including my own. In this neck of the woods it seems to be a hangover from the days of three sided rails, and the Evangelical Revivals of the 19th century where it was intended to emphasize the corporate aspect of Communion.
I am told communion by tables in a slightly different form was common among the local Presbys before the 'efficiency method' caught on. Apparently a long table was set up, and after that I am a bit hazy, but the original Presbys around here were Ulster-Scots.
Our local crematorium chapel is far too small, there is insufficient waiting space for mourners, and the "slots" available are very short.
As a result we tend here to have a funeral in church, then just a committal at the crem (with very close family only) while everyone else goes to the wake, where the group from the crem join them after c25 minutes.
Kilninian church on the Isle of Mull used to have a communion table which I remember from visits many years ago. Regular Church of Scotland worship ceased and it was used by RC for a few years before being taken on by Orthodox who had plans to build a small monastery adjacent. Much money has been spent on the fabric of the church building. The communion table was moved to a museum elsewhere in Scotland.
Organist, if the family could get back to the wake in 25 minutes here, we wouldn't have a problem. Here the round trip is about an hour, in which time people have left the wake.
By the way, I'm beginning to come across people who don't like the word "wake" because it's too gloomy. This has surprised me (to me it suggests a wild Irish party). Have the rest of you found this too?
Here its called "afterwards."
Odd, when you think we are just across the Mersey from Liverpool.
I call it the wake - even though I don't have a shred of Irish DNA in me.
Comments
The idea that the minister is "host" would be totally foreign to our understanding. Our liturgies are usually explicit in saying that Christ is the host.
Whereas for me, coming from an Anglican background to a fairly old fashioned Church of Scotland congregation one of the things that struck me about communion was the separation of the elders and minister from the people, that they gather around the table and share the common cup and only then dish out the wee cuppies to those in the pews. I doubt it's intentional that it comes across that way, just a matter of habits accreting over a century or so.
However, you are going to have to excuse me if I go no further on this, I am aware that I am walking myself into the temptation to make sharp comments based on past hurt.
Coming forward for communion seems to be becoming much more popular in my corner of the Presby-verse. In our congregation, we do pew communion with wee cuppies twice a year. The other dozen+ times, the congregation comes forward.
Anglicanism is not completely adverse to the practice of communion in your seat. It was the practice at one time (as late as the 19th century, I believe) at Christ Church, Oxford. I think it was current as late as Dr Pusey's time as Canon and Hebrew Professor.
I must admit that I have never encountered such a bell in any church of any variety. In every church I’ve ever been in where people go forward, either ushers appear in the aisle to regulate as it were the movement, or people simply know when to move forward.
More frequent celebrations of communion? Yes. Hmm. Maybe in some places... 4 times a year here.
As also happens at Our Place.
My irreverent mind always thinks of Pavlov's Dogs, as the bell rings, and the Faithful rise...
My suspicion is that for most (all?) liturgical practices the practical reason came first, and the theological explanation a while later. Several years ago I was taking a Remembrance Service, and noticed halfway through that the altar candles hadn't been lit. Rather than draw attention to the fact I left them as they were. Later I had comments about the poignant symbolism of unlit, or extinguished, candles for Remembrance.
I strongly suspect you are right.
Theological or symbolic explanations may be closer to the genesis in such cases, but they're mixed in with considerations of identity.
The first idea was, I thought, a lot earlier Origen. I thought it was there in the Didache, but it's been quite a while since I read it.
The explanation for the two candles is completely new to me. I'm afraid that does sound like a pious gloss on something that was probably purely practical in origin.
In the archaeological record of the UK you can identify the spread of Christianity from the evidence of the C6-7th cemeteries. The pagan Anglo-Saxons buried their dead with grave goods. But the Christian Anglo-Saxons buried their dead in a shroud and oriented E-W so they were ready to meet Christ at the resurrection.
I think most denominations have undergone an increase in the frequency of celebration in the last sixty years. In 1960 most PECUSA shacks had communion every week, but it was the main act of worship only once or twice a month. These days it would be considered unusual for a TEC parish to have anything other than HC as the main service.
Second an anecdote. Many moons ago I was one of two leaders for a house group and one week we were discussing communion. One member who was a trained preacher talked about how the taking off of the white cloth before communion from the elements represented the rolling away of the stone from the tomb on Easter morning. We all listened to the detailed way she explained the symbolism and were quite moved by it.
Then the Church Secretary spoke, "Do you want to know why we really have white cloths on the elements which we remove before communion?"
There was a general agreement that we did
"To stop plaster falling onto the elements" he replied.
That is not to say theology was not relevant to that action. The Church Secretary had changed who took the cloths off. Before he became Church Secretary this had always been the Church Secretary, but he felt this was hierarchical and not in keeping with the priesthood of all believers. So he had got Elders meeting to change it so it was one of the serving elders.
As for church building, that followed on from the practice of facing east to pray. But it really wasn't much of an issue until Christianity was legalized.
A fine example of the knack practical ceremonial acts have of picking up a symbolism quite different from their practical function. I am like the Church Secretary though - I tend to be the one who knows the practical use of things.
As for the trained preacher who said that taking off the white cloth represented the rolling away of the stone from the tomb on Easter morning, one wonders what she made of once again covering the elements with the white cloth after Communion was finished. (Or maybe that was only done here.)
It's tying the cat.
Another thing that has happened is that we have decluttered the church (U.S. sanctuary) so things like the removable shelves that go in the window bottoms to support Christmas decorations are now put away rather than being left out all year long. We also got rid of the curtain along the inside of the old choir gallery balustrade that hid the previous congregations sound equipment, and incidentally kept daylight out of the centre of the building.
The next thing to be taken in hand is the lighting. The previous owners seemed to think that you need the same light level to read a hymnbook as you need to perform neurosurgery, so the wattage of the overhead lights is far too high, and only possible thanks to the use of "industrial strength" compact florescent bulbs. I have been studying the architect's original (1925) lighting scheme, and it was far less aggressive.
One of the funny stories about the previous congregation is that they never had communion on Christmas because the area around the altar was always occupied by two enormous Christmas trees which must have been 18' tall if they were an inch. In later time they used a free standing table for communion, but prior to about 1995, the trees precluded Communion!
We'll have to work hard on it and catch up with a theological argument then. Seriously though, there's a lot of common sense in your post and more than a grain of truth.
As cremation becomes more common, I'm also used to services where the urn with the ashes may or may not be present in the church, with interment of the ashes at a later date.
* I was taught that it's a "funeral" if the body of the deceased is present, and a "memorial service" if the body is not present.
** Well, it's what we intended to do with my father, but the ground was frozen and the cemetery folks couldn't dig the hole. We went back to the cemetery the next day (Sunday) immediately after church.
The crematorium Chapel was too small for the number of people expected. To hold the service in Church followed by family going to the crematorium (not close by) for the committal would have meant missing people who had, in some cases, travelled for hours to attend. So we had a service for family in the morning at the crematorium followed by a memorial service in 'our' Church in the afternoon. Family had lunch together in between, which allowed us to catch up and talk about him together and we had tea for everyone at the end of the afternoon. It wasn't cheerful, exactly, but there was indeed "good singing [and] good preaching".
It depends who the person was. 'Doing it right' felt like the last thing I could do for him, but 'right' will vary from person to person.
American style funeral homes are (almost) unknown here, I think, although funeral directors usually have what is called a ‘chapel of rest’ where the body of the deceased may be viewed.
If I may return to Holy Communion practices, are there any Methodists out there who can explain to me the tradition of serving communion in “ tables”? ie a group of people come up to receive, sufficient to fill the space available, but wait for a prayer of dismissal before returning to their seats.
It is not as if there must always be twelve, as in the Last Supper. I fail to see the significance of this practice, and find it strange.
The significance has to do with underscoring the communal aspect of the Sacrament as a meal. That is, we sit (or stand or kneel) together just as we would sit together for a meal, not each coming as space opens up and going as soon as we each are done.
FWIW, I’ve encountered service by tables in Lutheran churches, too.
I am told communion by tables in a slightly different form was common among the local Presbys before the 'efficiency method' caught on. Apparently a long table was set up, and after that I am a bit hazy, but the original Presbys around here were Ulster-Scots.
As a result we tend here to have a funeral in church, then just a committal at the crem (with very close family only) while everyone else goes to the wake, where the group from the crem join them after c25 minutes.
By the way, I'm beginning to come across people who don't like the word "wake" because it's too gloomy. This has surprised me (to me it suggests a wild Irish party). Have the rest of you found this too?
Odd, when you think we are just across the Mersey from Liverpool.
I call it the wake - even though I don't have a shred of Irish DNA in me.