Slides during worship?

135

Comments

  • cliffdwellercliffdweller Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Leo wrote: »
    We need to cater for different learning styles. Or we're not catholic.
    The question isn't what we're learning so much as what we're teaching. PowerPoint has severe, potentially fatal limitations as an instruction medium.

    hyperbolic much???

    Eutychus wrote: »
    It works as a way of delivering song lyrics (provided always no distracting backgrounds) but takes the power for choosing which songs to sing out of the hands of the congregation, which may be seen either as a bug or a feature. What gets me is not so much the choice made but when it's applied unthinkingly or solely as a concession to fashion.

    How many congregations actually do choose the songs in the moment? Very few-- because accompanists, choirs, organists like to be prepared-- so they can give their best.

    But if spontaneity is the goal, powerpoint can deliver just as well as a hymnal. Just like a hymnal is a collection of songs and you can flip to the one you want, most churches have a collection of (appropriately licensed) powerpoints (or more likely, propresenter) slides that can be organized and pulled in just about the same amount of time it would take an organist to flip to the right page in the hymnal.

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    @cliffdweller it probably depends in part where you're coming from.

    Where I'm coming from is churches that started out, often in someone's front room, decidedly non-liturgically, with a theologically-driven ethos of every member participation which extended to include every member taking part in the construction of the worship service, in the spirit of 1 Cor 14:26
    When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

    I have been in enough of this type of meeting to know there's such a thing as an unwritten liturgy, and I am broad enough to welcome other approaches to corporate worship. I spent a couple of years in a liturgical church and was perfectly happy there.

    What gets me, however, is when churches throw away something that was born out of a theological principle (and whatever you say, @cliffdweller, it was nothing to do with "learning styles") and enthusiastically adopt new technology without considering the theological implications.

    (Do you seriously think there are none? Do you think the advent of the printing press had nothing to do with the Reformation? Or that the rise of radio and TV hasn't had an impact on the pollution of the Gospel by base financial considerations? More on this below).

    For a church with an ethos of multi-member worship construction (and which will probably never have had a hymn board or order of service in its life), transitioning to PowerPoint (which I have seen innumerable such churches do) is to compromise its orthopraxis massively purely on the basis of a fad.

    When it comes to corporate worship I am also very much a techno-Luddite, firstly because unless it's really, professionally well done (and even then), technology is most often a distraction, and secondly because I am concerned about people becoming more dependent on the technology to worship than on the Spirit. I want to equip people to be able, if needs be, to worship with no more resources than the four walls of the prison cell or hospital room they might find themselves in.

    I went through a charismatic conference period which as EmmaLouise once put it, really "spoiled me" for worship, and saw the stupidity of tiny churches trying to mimic the set-up for 10,000 people. I also saw the ability of worship thus organised to be manipulative.

    PowerPoint is great for some things and I myself sometimes use it (usually not in a church context). As far as I'm concerned it is a fact that it is terrible for other things; explaining complex concepts, such as in engineering, is one, as the account of the Columbia example compellingly argues. I'm not convinced it's suitable for explaining theological concepts, either. And if I can't be effective without it, I'd rather not have it.

    The discussion of the effect of people reading the Bible on their phones rather than in hardcopy format is another massive technology shift that I haven't seen anybody discuss the theological implications of. I'm more divided in my thinking on that one and it's off-topic here, but don't tell me this shift won't have any impact on, say, people's concept of the canon.
  • I just wrote a post for this thread, and deleted it because it was nonsense. Actually, I find books other than hymn books just as distracting unless I know what they contain already. Hymn books only get a pass because I've always used them. I prefer to assimilate liturgy, because only then can I participate fully. Screens definitely help even less than service books, because of their distracting collective focus away from altar and pulpit, but that is not my fundamental gripe. My fundamental gripe is being distracted from the liturgy/office and the flow of energy it creates by a prop which becomes a distraction.
  • In my approach, the book is not a prop but a resource.
  • Educational research has been pointing out that there is no such thing as preferred learning styles for quite some time. Learning styles are a myth. It's one of many reasons I left my previous job - being instructed to lead training on learning styles when I knew it was nonsense.
  • Oooh ... did you hear that, Eutychus, someone is calling us both 'black-arse'.

    (An early variant on the old English proverb, 'like the pot calling the kettle black' is, 'The pot calling the kettle black-arse.')

    More seriously, I 'get' the learning styles thing and I have no problem with the visual supplementing the auditory (and the tactile too come to that).

    It's often been said, of course, that more 'Catholic' and sacramental forms of worship engage all the senses - sight, sound, smell, taste and touch.

    It's the more Puritanical Protestant traditions that have tended (I say 'tended') to emphasise the verbal and the auditory.

    I don't think that always applies, though, I've seen some quite visual stuff going on in URC and some Baptist services, for instance.

    My problem with PowerPoint isn't the visual aspect, it's the cack-handed way it's so often applied. I don't see how it is any more infantilising or disempowering than any other pre-prepared medium though - whether a hymn book, a set liturgy or whatever else.

    What's so 'infantilising' about an Anglican Compline service, say or a Presbyterian service which includes set pieces of liturgy?

    And why - as per another thread where Eutychus is airing these kind of issues - is it ok to prepare a sermon in advance but not the rest of the service? Why is something apparently extemporary seen as carrying more weight and value than something that has been programmed in?

    I don't get that.

    An RC friend once told me how a particular Anglo-Catholic priest in an inner-city parish he knows 'empowers' people from deprived backgrounds by enabling them to serve as acolytes and thurifers and so on. By Eutychus's lights would these people not be 'empowered' at all because they are following well-established rhythms and rituals?


  • @cliffdweller sorry, I missed your later post when composing my long one.
    hyperbolic much???
    Did you read the article? I have heard the same point made in industry. PowerPoints are not always fit for purpose and the results can be catastrophic.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    How many congregations actually do choose the songs in the moment? Very few-- because accompanists, choirs, organists like to be prepared-- so they can give their best.
    You should come and visit some time. Our church has been compared to a jazz club.
    But if spontaneity is the goal, powerpoint can deliver just as well as a hymnal. Just like a hymnal is a collection of songs and you can flip to the one you want, most churches have a collection of (appropriately licensed) powerpoints (or more likely, propresenter) slides that can be organized and pulled in just about the same amount of time it would take an organist to flip to the right page in the hymnal.
    We did this back in the days of a larger church and an overhead projector (remember those?). The problem in my experience is that the choice by congregation members tends to be reduced to the current "top 40" in the congregation rather than be content-focused. We had an example just last Sunday of somebody who is not a regular contributor very unfamiliar with our non-liturgical top 40 choosing another song on the basis of content that was in my view spot on. That is what I am aiming for in our corporate worship. YMMV.

  • An RC friend once told me how a particular Anglo-Catholic priest in an inner-city parish he knows 'empowers' people from deprived backgrounds by enabling them to serve as acolytes and thurifers and so on. By Eutychus's lights would these people not be 'empowered' at all because they are following well-established rhythms and rituals?
    I would certainly question what they are being empowered for, but I have never claimed a monopoly on anything.

    When I put "YMMV" at the end of my last post, I meant it.

    My responsibility is for what I do and to have a justification for it. I do my best to go along with Paul and rejoice at wherever the Gospel is preached, even if like Paul I don't hesitate to voice my reservations about how it's done.

    My concern here is that a lot of churches, certainly many of those at my end of the candle, simply don't think these things through at all, they just follow whatever they saw at the last big conference.

  • curiosity killed: Interesting. The link itself is not all that helpful since it's beginning with your point (learning style is a myth) as a jumping off point for their examination of what teachers believe & do. I'm going to have to dig out the articles they quote in their lit revieww which are the relevant ones to our point here. I want to figure out what their research actually shows-- and why this "myth" is so compelling, both to educators (like me) as well as for learners (like me) who, for whatever reason (placebo effect?) develop strong preferences for one over the other. But definitely new info for me and interesting.

    Eutychus wrote: »
    @cliffdweller it probably depends in part where you're coming from.

    Where I'm coming from is churches that started out, often in someone's front room, decidedly non-liturgically, with a theologically-driven ethos of every member participation which extended to include every member taking part in the construction of the worship service, in the spirit of 1 Cor 14:26
    When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

    But again, powerpoint/propresenter is no barrier to this. Powerpoint is no less available to either spontaneous or planned collaboration than any other medium.

    Eutychus wrote: »
    What gets me, however, is when churches throw away something that was born out of a theological principle (and whatever you say, @cliffdweller, it was nothing to do with "learning styles") and enthusiastically adopt new technology without considering the theological implications.

    (Do you seriously think there are none? Do you think the advent of the printing press had nothing to do with the Reformation? Or that the rise of radio and TV hasn't had an impact on the pollution of the Gospel by base financial considerations? More on this below).

    For a church with an ethos of multi-member worship construction (and which will probably never have had a hymn board or order of service in its life), transitioning to PowerPoint (which I have seen innumerable such churches do) is to compromise its orthopraxis massively purely on the basis of a fad.

    It may not be "learning styles" to you, but it is to me-- and to others who have weighed in. Again, curiosity has given me a bit of homework-- but the fact remains that some in our culture experience a difference with auditory vs visual media. I can't guess why that is without pursuing those sources noted but not quoted in curiosity's link, but the experience is a common one-- as we see here. Perhaps it is conditioning, perhaps it is expectation, or habit. Or perhaps the research isn't as conclusive as curiosity believes. We'll see. But regardless, it seems uncharitable at best for you to dismiss that experience, whatever it's source, simply because it's not yours.

    And, if there are "theological implication" what are they? You are quick to assume adoption of powerpoint is motivated purely by "fad"-- despite testimony from those who say they have benefitted from it. So what are the dangerous "theological implications" that are threatened by it? What orthopraxis is compromised? It's not enough just to claim them-- you have to tell us what they are, what the harm is (other than your dislike).

    Certainly (as you discuss below and I will respond) there are dangers-- as is with any tool. Because that's what it is, a tool.

    In John Dyer's From the Garden to the City he has an excellent discussion of this and a more reasoned discussion of the dangers and benefits of technology (as well as embodied vs mediated communication). But from a more reasonable place of acknowledging that those cost/benefits apply to every piece of technology, from a shovel (can dig holes for seeds to feed a nation, or be used as a weapon to bash someone's head in) to powerpoint.

    Eutychus wrote: »
    When it comes to corporate worship I am also very much a techno-Luddite, firstly because unless it's really, professionally well done (and even then), technology is most often a distraction, and secondly because I am concerned about people becoming more dependent on the technology to worship than on the Spirit. I want to equip people to be able, if needs be, to worship with no more resources than the four walls of the prison cell or hospital room they might find themselves in.

    I went through a charismatic conference period which as EmmaLouise once put it, really "spoiled me" for worship, and saw the stupidity of tiny churches trying to mimic the set-up for 10,000 people. I also saw the ability of worship thus organised to be manipulative.

    I think those are all valid points, but go to the "how it used" nature of a tool ("don't use your shovel to hit someone over the head!") more than the technology itself.

    Eutychus wrote: »
    PowerPoint is great for some things and I myself sometimes use it (usually not in a church context). As far as I'm concerned it is a fact that it is terrible for other things; explaining complex concepts, such as in engineering, is one, as the account of the Columbia example compellingly argues. I'm not convinced it's suitable for explaining theological concepts, either. And if I can't be effective without it, I'd rather not have it.

    There are plenty of other explanations of the Columbia disaster that have been explored and published for me to accept that a misplaced bullet point is the cause. Again, the article struck me as ridiculously hyperbolic.

    But yes, there is good powerpoint (professional, low key, subtle, non-intrusive, helpful) and bad powerpoint (cheesy graphics, overloaded slides, distracting animations, etc). Again that's the nature of any tool. I think that goes to the complex principles as well. Overall, when describing something complex, including theological concepts, powerpoint can be enormously helpful when used well (as I do in univ lectures on theology) and problematic if not. But not usually "fatal", your hyperbolic article not withstanding.


  • Eutychus wrote: »
    You should come and visit some time. Our church has been compared to a jazz club.

    I do think I would enjoy it. With or without powerpoint.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The question isn't what we're learning so much as what we're teaching. PowerPoint has severe, potentially fatal limitations as an instruction medium.
    For all one's grumbles about PowerPoint, it can hardly take the blame for inventing the idea that one can either hide the embarrassing bits in the small print or dress them up in evasive language so that people won't notice them.

  • I think churches of any and every stripe often fail to think things through ...

    I think there is a tendency for lively charismatic churches to leap lemming-like onto any fad. Too often they try to replicate the big conference auditorium style with 6 people and a dog.

    The same applies with some more formally liturgical churches which try to lay on full cathedral style worship with a handful of people.

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    But again, powerpoint/propresenter is no barrier to this. Powerpoint is no less available to either spontaneous or planned collaboration than any other medium.
    I can't see a way of congregation members suggesting the next thing that should be sung with an eye to content unless they already have the words in front of them in some form.

    I suppose they could look them up on their phones but again I think that is using two lots of breakable technology to do what one - a book - could do more cheaply and simply.

    (I worked last week interpreting at a VR conference. The defence guys were very hot on not introducing technology onto the battlefield that would cripple the soldier if it failed and that did not actually achieve something lower tech could not).
    but the fact remains that some in our culture experience a difference with auditory vs visual media.
    As far as song words go, there's not much difference in this respect between reading them off a page and off a screen except the liability of technology to fail and the fact that reasoned individual choice is more difficult. As for the rest @mousethief is already trying to persuade me to go full Orthodox elswhere. All I can say to that is, there are two Orthodox congregations in my city already.
    And, if there are "theological implication" what are they?
    I think I've already covered this above. Simply put, to me PowerPoint (for songs) tips the balance too far towards consumerism for habitual worship.
    But from a more reasonable place of acknowledging that those cost/benefits apply to every piece of technology, from a shovel (can dig holes for seeds to feed a nation, or be used as a weapon to bash someone's head in) to powerpoint.
    This connects to my thread about counter-culture in Purgatory.

    Again, YMMV, but it seems to me that the more technology we introduce into church practice, the more the danger that the vector of the Gospel is, ultimately, money, and not grace. If you're going to use technology, it needs to be used excellently in my view, and that costs a lot of money, which I think is a distraction and potentially a damaging one. Look at the mess the right-leaning evangelicals in the US are in and it's hard to escape that conclusion from where I'm sitting. I think they have sold their souls. Their chosen vector is money and influence, not grace.

    (That said, I don't know how big your church is, but Netflix's Greenleaf series got me thinking. I'd guess the congregation of the fictional Calvary Church in the series is around 750. Rather counterintuitively, the series actually made me think it might conceivably be possible to have the anointing to lead a church of that size and not get ensnared by all the material implications involved, but I am absolutely one hundred percent sure I don't have that particular anointing).
    wrote:
    I think those are all valid points, but go to the "how it used" nature of a tool ("don't use your shovel to hit someone over the head!") more than the technology itself.
    This is true up to a point, but I think PowerPoint is an example like few others of technology being overwhelmingly badly used, and I say someone who a) translates PowerPoints (among other things) for a living and b) interprets at a wide variety of symposiums with endless PowerPoint presentations. I also maintain that people haven't thought enough about the effect of how PowerPoint mediates information.
  • 'Anointing'? You're beginning to sound Pentecostal now ...
  • It's more of a biblical word than hwyl. Do you want to visit Hell again?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I was hoping someone was going to point out the problem with putting this down to "learning styles" ie they don't actually exist.

    It is personal preference. I get bored in long sermons, and I like well-chosen imagery, but that's not because I'm a "visual learner", it's because I get bored easily, and generally am not particularly interested in what the preacher's saying. I could readily enjoy and learn from an hour presentation on philosophy and practice of tabletop RPG design or comparative linguistics. Attuning yourself to your audience's preferences is perfectly fine. The main thing is being engaging.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Incidentally, that this is about preferences is reinforced by the link CC gave: if I may quote:

    This finding leads us to urge caution and clarity in the continued ‘debunking’ of the ‘myth’ of Learning Styles. Learners obviously have preferences for how they learn. In addition, there is an obvious appeal to using a variety of teaching methods and in asking students to reflect on the ways in which they learn. However, these three concepts are unrelated to the (unsupported) idea that there is a benefit to learners from diagnosing their ‘Learning Style’ using one of the specific classifications (Coffield et al., 2004) and attempting to match teaching to those styles.
  • I was using the 'hwyl' reference against myself, Eutychus. Don't be so touchy.

    You've said that you reserve the right to question and challenge. Rightly so. That works both ways.

    Meanwhile, yes, I agree with Karl, whether it's a short or long sermon the key is to engage.

    That said, I think there are both individual and corporate spiritual practices and disciplines that require us to grit our teeth and get on with it. Fasting isn't fun. I'm not saying we should get all penitential and beat ourselves with withies ...

    Some might enjoy that though too ...
  • 'Anointing'? You're beginning to sound Pentecostal now ...
    This is neither a question nor a challenge.

  • I've started a thread on learning styles in Purgatory.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    'Anointing'? You're beginning to sound Pentecostal now ...
    This is neither a question nor a challenge.

    You're right. It was a throwaway remark.
  • It was throwaway snark. And as such is indefensible as either a question or a challenge.
  • Fair enough. I withdraw it. Let's return to discussing the issues.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I love hymn books. Especially the sound they make when you accidentally drop them on the wooden floor during Silent Prayer.
  • O, not deliberately, surely?
    :naughty:

    IJ
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    O, not deliberately, surely?
    :innocent:

  • O, fie! That's nearly as bad as making rabbits'-ears silhouettes against the PowerPoint slides, no?

    IJ
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Only at Easter.
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    I bet none of the anti-learing style people on this thread have ever taught children in state schools.
  • [continuing tangent]@Leo - you bet wrongly - I have taught in mainstream secondary schools and special behaviour units. It doesn't stop me knowing that classifying students as being visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learners is tosh. The research is also saying that a variety of teaching is good, but using methods that are proven, not this neuromyth balderdash.[/continuing tangent]
  • As a "Projector Pilot" I can assure you that we need to be able to cope with spontaneity.
    When the worship leader sings the songs in a different order
    When they decide to drop /add a new song
    When the list of songs they gave you only has titles, and you chose the wrong one of the 3 different "I love god so much" songs in the library and you've only just realised it when you hear the introduction isn't it what you were expecting.

    And yes, the warnings that we come to rely on it are real.
    One morning I had to restart the computer, and it decided it needed to install a bunch of updates. It was still on "4 of 28" as the leader welcomed everyone. So they (shock horror) changed the order, with a kids song everyone knows at the beginning, then the sermon (no PowerPoint) and by the time the sermon was finished the computer was ready, and we had one large block of sung worship rather than the expected "hymn sandwich"
  • Leo wrote: »
    I bet none of the anti-learing style people on this thread have ever taught children in state schools.

    I'll take that bet. I've taught and still do teach children in state schools. VAK is vacuous nonsense.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    The church I most often attend uses slides for the family service, and I still cringe at the clipart used for Jesus in the desert. The desert had a large cactus, of the sort that gets you a prison sentence if you attempt to take it out of Arizona. Jesus looked as if he came from somewhere in Scandinavia. I hope the children were none of them visual learners, and have forgotten the information. Images have to be appropriate. If they must be used.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    The church I most often attend uses slides for the family service, and I still cringe at the clipart used for Jesus in the desert. The desert had a large cactus, of the sort that gets you a prison sentence if you attempt to take it out of Arizona. Jesus looked as if he came from somewhere in Scandinavia. I hope the children were none of them visual learners, and have forgotten the information. Images have to be appropriate. If they must be used.


    "Look away, children, look away!"

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Wet Kipper wrote: »
    As a "Projector Pilot" I can assure you that we need to be able to cope with spontaneity.
    When the worship leader sings the songs in a different order
    When they decide to drop /add a new song
    When the list of songs they gave you only has titles, and you chose the wrong one of the 3 different "I love god so much" songs in the library and you've only just realised it when you hear the introduction isn't it what you were expecting.

    And yes, the warnings that we come to rely on it are real.

    Agreed.

    (Are we the only two Projector Pilots on the Ship?)

    I always suggest preachers have a ‘plan B’ in case the system goes down or the electricity goes off. But they all use the new hymn book and the Church only bought ten copies, so it will be interesting if/when it does!



  • QED.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    QED.

    Meaning they shouldn’t be used at all? Or something else?

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I worked last week interpreting at a VR conference. The defence guys were very hot on not introducing technology onto the battlefield that would cripple the soldier if it failed and that did not actually achieve something lower tech could not

    To my mind, if you're going to adopt new technology in a church, it has to meet the above criteria.
  • I'm tempted to echo Eutychus's QED too. Although I think we're all getting too reliant on digital technology anyway.

    You can't take a sound-system and projection equipment with you into prison.

    I remember hearing an interview with Terry Waite where he said that he was able to keep himself sane by remembering the words of the Prayer Book and also imagining places he knew in great detail.

    That's an ability we might lose.

    I'm not sure I'd say that PowerPoint or similar should never, ever, ever be used. If they are used, I'd suggest they be used sparingly and in a way that the whole service doesn't suddenly implode if the technology goes down for whatever reason.

    I'm not saying we should go back to the days when people couldn't read and someone would stand at the front to 'line-out' the hymns (as used to happen in the UK until well on into the 19th century).

    Liner-outer: All people that on earth do dwell -
    Congregation: All people that on earth do dwell -
    Liner-outer: Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice -
    Congregation: Sing to the Lord with cheerful voice -
    Liner-outer: Him serve with mirth, his praise forth tell ...

    But at least that's a low-tech solution that could carry on if the PowerPoint packs up.
  • I don't doubt that if we actually used our own building, there would be a number of redundancy measures taken to address such technical issues.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 2018
    I'm not saying we should go back to the days when people couldn't read and someone would stand at the front to 'line-out' the hymns (as used to happen in the UK until well on into the 19th century).(...)
    But at least that's a low-tech solution that could carry on if the PowerPoint packs up.
    And it is exactly what I do in prison.

    For the simple reason that most of the congregation is functionally illiterate.

    (Actually the trick is to choose only songs with enough time between the lines to "line out" the upcoming one).

    (Once that is mastered, try finding those that will work in more than one language).

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    I'm not saying we should go back to the days when people couldn't read and someone would stand at the front to 'line-out' the hymns (as used to happen in the UK until well on into the 19th century).
    Likewise in the US. I've never been to a church where "lining" was employed, but I've seen it done in movies and it seemed to me that it added a degree of fervor and intensity to the singing. (That could have simply been the director, though.)
  • I suppose you could MW one of my prison services...
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    As for the rest @mousethief is already trying to persuade me to go full Orthodox elswhere. All I can say to that is, there are two Orthodox congregations in my city already.
    The hell you say.
  • I'm not saying we should go back to the days when people couldn't read and someone would stand at the front to 'line-out' the hymns (as used to happen in the UK until well on into the 19th century).
    Likewise in the US. I've never been to a church where "lining" was employed, but I've seen it done in movies and it seemed to me that it added a degree of fervor and intensity to the singing. (That could have simply been the director, though.)

    If it's the film (movie) I'm thinking of, someone who is into US 'shape-note' singing told me that the fervour was exaggerated for cinematic effect. I daresay it depends on the particular style and tradition of the church involved.

    Coming back to Eutychus's point, his is a position I have a lot of sympathy with, despite my previous comments.

    The lining out thing used to happen right across the ecclesial spectrum, in Anglican parish churches, in Methodist, Baptist and other non-conformist churches. Obviously, in an Anglican context where congregational hymn-singing was a comparatively recent development, the bloke doing the lining out would have originally lined-out the responses and the words of the metrical Psalms.

    The principle was the same, though.

    In WW1 Russian Orthodox chaplains would celebrate the Liturgy on the top of empty oil-drums on the Eastern Front without all the paraphernalia and accoutrements they would use back in their parishes.

    I don't know why we have this current obsession with technology in worship.

    The last time I visited my own restorationist new-church set-up it was a shadow of its former self. There were only a handful of adults left. Yet the two worship leaders led the singing to the accompaniment of a backing tape which didn't just include the music but a full-on mass auditorium sound. It was clearly recorded at some gigantic convention of some kind. It was rather bizarre watching 30 or 40 adults singing along to some loud recording that gave the impression of thousands of people present ...

    Wierd.

    Now, I know nobody here is advocating something like that, but it does illustrate where some of this technology gizmo stuff can lead. Other traditions have their own problems of course.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    As for the rest @mousethief is already trying to persuade me to go full Orthodox elswhere. All I can say to that is, there are two Orthodox congregations in my city already.
    The hell you say.
    Sorry, that was hyperbole about your comments about worship on the universalism thread. I'll be joining my Orthodox brethen in Kiev next week, God willing.

  • That's exciting! Safe travels.
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    Leo wrote: »
    I bet none of the anti-learing style people on this thread have ever taught children in state schools.

    I'll take that bet. I've taught and still do teach children in state schools. VAK is vacuous nonsense.

    But you can't force kids to learn. you have to appeal to their preferences in order to motivate them.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I'm fairly sure that 'lining out' is the origin of the remarkable way psalms are sung in Gaelic - particularly since many of the tunes are theoretically the same as ordinary Common Metre tunes used in English, but not so as you'd be able to recognise any connection.
  • We do a lot of lining out in Girl Guide (and Brownie and Scouts) campfire sing songs.
Sign In or Register to comment.