they model far more give and take on the small stuff than most urban churches I've worshipped in.
By way of examples, I think there's more readiness to
- have anything on a Sunday rather than nothing
- give wide latitude to worship styles that are offered on the basis of point one, and the difficulties going anywhere else/lack of other options
- accept that most services will be non-eucharistic
- accept that some services won't even have licenced readers (and consequently won't have preaching, even, just hymns and prayers) - but, if you want a service at all...
In some ways, it's radically traditional, or traditionally radical, but it stems from great flexibility of mind (borne out of necessity).
By way of examples, I think there's more readiness to ... accept that most services will be non-eucharistic.
Which of course is the norm in most Baptist (and many other Nonconformist) churches. And am I right in thinking that, prior to the Oxford Movement, the majority of CofE services were non-eucharistic (i.e. Mattins)?
By way of examples, I think there's more readiness to ... accept that most services will be non-eucharistic.
Which of course is the norm in most Baptist (and many other Nonconformist) churches. And am I right in thinking that, prior to the Oxford Movement, the majority of CofE services were non-eucharistic (i.e. Mattins)?
Indeed - hence radically traditional, 'traditionally radical' is more that we're being forced to go back to old ways of doing things after perhaps 70 years (at least) of default expectation of weekly Eucharist. There are people in their 80s in our congregation who've never know it another way.
Which of course is the norm in most Baptist (and many other Nonconformist) churches. And am I right in thinking that, prior to the Oxford Movement, the majority of CofE services were non-eucharistic (i.e. Mattins)?
It's a lot more recent than that. Other than in anglo-catholic parishes, until the 1950s the usual Sunday pattern was Holy Communion, said, at 8am, Morning Prayer/Mattins at 11 am, with choir, hymns, canticles and psalm sung badly in prose, and sermon, and Evening Prayer/Evensong likewise at 6 or 6.30 pm. In those days most parishes had a vicar. In the course of the 1950s it began to become more widespread for parishes to have a Holy Communion once a month in place of Morning Prayer, with choir, hymns, sermon etc.
Communion every week was something that was largely restricted to Roman Catholics (who hardly ever received), Anglo-Catholics and Brethren.
As referenced by John Betjeman in his poem on the death of George V, going to Communion once a month was what was usual and worthy, unless one landed hatless from the air, in which case it was assumed one didn't go at all.
Before the mid-nineteenth century the practice was different. A typical Sunday morning was Morning Prayer, Litany, Antecommunion (i.e. first half of BCP Communion Service), Sermon. The service only followed through to consecration and communion on a Sacrament Sunday when people might have been expected to have given their names in a week before. These might only be monthly or even three times a year. Evening Prayer then was often mid-afternoon, followed by sermon.
More frequent Communion attendance has only become widespread since the various newer forms of service began to come in.
Thank you Enoch, I rather suspected that might have been the situations but I wanted to err on the side of caution! Certainly the church of my childhood embraced the Parish Communion model in around 1960, making 9.30am Communion the "main service" rather than 11am Mattins. This caused - yes! - disgruntlement among the traditionalists and, I presume, those who liked a "long lie" on Sunday morning; but was possibly embraced by others as it got church "done and dusted" well before lunchtime!
So weekly Communion was indeed (say it quietly) an Innovation (as were Vestments, but that's another story).
Evening Prayer then was often mid-afternoon, followed by sermon.
See "Lark Rise to Candleford" (the book). I presume that the introduction of gas and then electric lighting (not to mention street lighting) allowed services to be later, as did urbanisation (as you didn't have to rush back to milk the cows). I do wonder how 6.30pm became so institutionalised - after all, most Places of Entertainment have always started later.
/Ends.
We encourage people who can’t carry a tune in a bucket to sing in the congregation. We should encourage people to dance.
In most congregational singing, what the congregation is encouraged to sing is the tune. Free dance is more akin to that scene in Harry Potter where everyone sings the school song to whatever tune they fancy.
To be fair, though, this isn't directly comparable. Multiple tunes being sung at once make it hard for each particular singer to sing the tune they are singing because the frequencies interfere; multiple dance moves do not do that. This is why Silent Discos can work without having to also blindfold the participants.
To put it another way, if I'm singing in F# at 120bpm, you're going to struggle to sing in C at 125bpm. But if I raise my right arm whilst you do a turn on the spot, we're not going to put each other off.
There is often a sharp learning curve to be negotiated at first, just as there was for many of us when long-familiar language (eg Latin or Cranmerian) was replaced by modern forms. But people grow into it. The worst thing is if an experiment is discarded too soon and replaced by an equally short-lived one. Self-consciousness is the enemy.
Agree - though what I find fascinating in a rural benefice of 5 churches which went totally over to the ASB when that came out and then Common Worship contemporary language, and has subsequently introduced cafe church into most of the churches too, is that the introduction of the latter has actually spurred a resurgence/reappearance of BCP in at least 3 parishes in response. Sort of 'we're giving those people what they want, so we'd quite like what we want please' - and it's an interesting mix of people longing for their BCP world of nearly 50 years ago now, and people too young to have had that.
I really dislike cafe church, but I recognise that it works for some people - it helped with the argument to reintroduce BCP Mattins though! They get that, so we get this.
I actually think - and multiparish rural benefices are actually modelling this very successfully IME - that the trick is to operate a mixed economy model within a church (never mind the benefice) where everyone gets something that they want, without trying to impose uniformity. So you cycle through BCP, Common Worship, Cafe Church, etc every month rather than being a BCP church, or a MOR church, or whatever.
In the sticks, I find people are pretty forgiving of what they get in their parish church, as long as they get *something* (first of all), and secondly that it doesn't settle into any one style. Small village churches have a host of challenges all of their own, but they model far more give and take on the small stuff than most urban churches I've worshipped in.
All the small village churches I know around here have very much settled into one particular style.
There is often a sharp learning curve to be negotiated at first, just as there was for many of us when long-familiar language (eg Latin or Cranmerian) was replaced by modern forms. But people grow into it. The worst thing is if an experiment is discarded too soon and replaced by an equally short-lived one. Self-consciousness is the enemy.
Agree - though what I find fascinating in a rural benefice of 5 churches which went totally over to the ASB when that came out and then Common Worship contemporary language, and has subsequently introduced cafe church into most of the churches too, is that the introduction of the latter has actually spurred a resurgence/reappearance of BCP in at least 3 parishes in response. Sort of 'we're giving those people what they want, so we'd quite like what we want please' - and it's an interesting mix of people longing for their BCP world of nearly 50 years ago now, and people too young to have had that.
I really dislike cafe church, but I recognise that it works for some people - it helped with the argument to reintroduce BCP Mattins though! They get that, so we get this.
I actually think - and multiparish rural benefices are actually modelling this very successfully IME - that the trick is to operate a mixed economy model within a church (never mind the benefice) where everyone gets something that they want, without trying to impose uniformity. So you cycle through BCP, Common Worship, Cafe Church, etc every month rather than being a BCP church, or a MOR church, or whatever.
In the sticks, I find people are pretty forgiving of what they get in their parish church, as long as they get *something* (first of all), and secondly that it doesn't settle into any one style. Small village churches have a host of challenges all of their own, but they model far more give and take on the small stuff than most urban churches I've worshipped in.
All the small village churches I know around here have very much settled into one particular style.
Well if they’re all thriving then great.
The other model, I’ve experienced it in a couple of dioceses now, might not lead away from extinction, but it does seem to get more of the village into at least some of the services.
Some years ago the ancient church in the Norfolk village where my sister then lived was closed for restoration works. It is fairly remote from the houses (across fields and near the Big Farm). Services transferred to the Village Hall which is actually in the village itself. Once a month (I think) the Vicar, invoking a well-known Norfolk phrase, put on a service called "Do Church Different" instead of the regular Morning Prayer/Eucharist. It wasn't particularly "way out" but basically a more informal family service. And it was successful, with non-church people attending. Until ...
The restoration work was complete and the church people moved back to the church building with traditional services every Sunday. The Village Hall and the newcomers were left behind. I find this very sad.
To what extent do you feel that sort of varying worship fosters a common identity? Or do you - which is what I've observed - feel that people come to think of their bit of the mixed economy as 'the church' ?
Indeed - one feels that there was a good case for transferring all regular services to the Village Hall, retaining the church as a Festival Church with half-a-dozen services a year, or whatever. This, of course, would have been a radical step...
There is often a sharp learning curve to be negotiated at first, just as there was for many of us when long-familiar language (eg Latin or Cranmerian) was replaced by modern forms. But people grow into it. The worst thing is if an experiment is discarded too soon and replaced by an equally short-lived one. Self-consciousness is the enemy.
Agree - though what I find fascinating in a rural benefice of 5 churches which went totally over to the ASB when that came out and then Common Worship contemporary language, and has subsequently introduced cafe church into most of the churches too, is that the introduction of the latter has actually spurred a resurgence/reappearance of BCP in at least 3 parishes in response. Sort of 'we're giving those people what they want, so we'd quite like what we want please' - and it's an interesting mix of people longing for their BCP world of nearly 50 years ago now, and people too young to have had that.
I really dislike cafe church, but I recognise that it works for some people - it helped with the argument to reintroduce BCP Mattins though! They get that, so we get this.
I actually think - and multiparish rural benefices are actually modelling this very successfully IME - that the trick is to operate a mixed economy model within a church (never mind the benefice) where everyone gets something that they want, without trying to impose uniformity. So you cycle through BCP, Common Worship, Cafe Church, etc every month rather than being a BCP church, or a MOR church, or whatever.
In the sticks, I find people are pretty forgiving of what they get in their parish church, as long as they get *something* (first of all), and secondly that it doesn't settle into any one style. Small village churches have a host of challenges all of their own, but they model far more give and take on the small stuff than most urban churches I've worshipped in.
All the small village churches I know around here have very much settled into one particular style.
Well if they’re all thriving then great.
They aren't. But they don't know how to do anything else.
To what extent do you feel that sort of varying worship fosters a common identity? Or do you - which is what I've observed - feel that people come to think of their bit of the mixed economy as 'the church' ?
My observation is that there’s a core that goes to everything, and a fringe that changes - certainly in the church I attend. It’s of a piece with other village activities, in that people seem minded to support things they’re not that into, to make them viable for the people that really value them - church (and within church particular services), WI, etc.
Under no illusions that it is magically stopping the rot, even in my own parish, but it does at least seem to be holding back the tide for a bit.
Indeed - one feels that there was a good case for transferring all regular services to the Village Hall, retaining the church as a Festival Church with half-a-dozen services a year, or whatever. This, of course, would have been a radical step...
And a sensible one. But ... but ... that couldn't happen because the Village Hall wasn't a proper church!
(I'm sure that Christian discipleship is supposed to be a sequence of radical steps, though it doesn't often seem to work out like that).
I suspect that the number of Festival Churches in the C of E will increase in future years, whether or not more convenient village halls are used for regular services instead.
OTOH, the sort of mixed economy mentioned (and fostered! ) by @betjemaniac is indeed a way forward, if only people will co-operate...
OTOH, the sort of mixed economy mentioned (and fostered! ) by @betjemaniac is indeed a way forward, if only people will co-operate...
I've just helped my local church to roll the dice, that's all. It seems to be currently successful, but (as a layman with no more responsibility than PCC membership) all I'm doing is trying.
I'm slightly personally invested by being early 40s, and consequently having one eye on trying to keep the show on the road into the future, but that's it.
Left to my own preferences, I'd be worshipping in a Forward in Faith parish, like wot I was formed in, but here I am in mud and mattins land because it's where I am and there's a much loved and valued village church to keep afloat. Can't save them all, but I'm going to do my best to give this one a fighting chance.
Well, more power to yer elbow, as they say! More lay people, prepared to do as you are doing, would help other churches, of course, and I daresay there are Places where this is the case.
I suppose we're getting off topic, but, if it works, do it...
Left to my own preferences, I'd be worshipping in a Forward in Faith parish, like wot I was formed in, but here I am in mud and mattins land because it's where I am and there's a much loved and valued village church to keep afloat. Can't save them all, but I'm going to do my best to give this one a fighting chance.
That’s awesome. Seriously, i wish we had more of that sort of maturity.
I'm not quite sure if I understand (or agree with) your opening sentence - although I strongly agree with your final one.
I could have been clearer! The 'tradition' we have inherited (or traditions) have evolved over the centuries as generations of Christians have expressed their faith in worship. Every insight or practice was once new, and therefore could be seen as 'untraditional', but each insight or practice in turn became part of the tradition. Some things might be failed experiments rather than lasting elements of the tradition, but potentially every act of worship, however bizarre or unprecedented, is part of the tradition.
Whether or not it is helpful to continually reinvent the wheel, rather than draw on inherited tradition, is another matter of course.
I'm not quite sure if I understand (or agree with) your opening sentence - although I strongly agree with your final one.
I could have been clearer! The 'tradition' we have inherited (or traditions) have evolved over the centuries as generations of Christians have expressed their faith in worship. Every insight or practice was once new, and therefore could be seen as 'untraditional', but each insight or practice in turn became part of the tradition. Some things might be failed experiments rather than lasting elements of the tradition, but potentially every act of worship, however bizarre or unprecedented, is part of the tradition.
Whether or not it is helpful to continually reinvent the wheel, rather than draw on inherited tradition, is another matter of course.
But one could say that acknowledging and allowing for at least some ongoing innovation or creativity—new practices from new insights—is part of the inherited tradition.
Humanity was not made for the Sabbath seems to me to perhaps have some relevance here.
I'm not quite sure if I understand (or agree with) your opening sentence - although I strongly agree with your final one.
I could have been clearer! The 'tradition' we have inherited (or traditions) have evolved over the centuries as generations of Christians have expressed their faith in worship. Every insight or practice was once new, and therefore could be seen as 'untraditional', but each insight or practice in turn became part of the tradition. Some things might be failed experiments rather than lasting elements of the tradition, but potentially every act of worship, however bizarre or unprecedented, is part of the tradition.
Whether or not it is helpful to continually reinvent the wheel, rather than draw on inherited tradition, is another matter of course.
But one could say that acknowledging and allowing for at least some ongoing innovation or creativity—new practices from new insights—is part of the inherited tradition.
Humanity was not made for the Sabbath seems to me to perhaps have some relevance here.
I'm not quite sure if I understand (or agree with) your opening sentence - although I strongly agree with your final one.
I could have been clearer! The 'tradition' we have inherited (or traditions) have evolved over the centuries as generations of Christians have expressed their faith in worship. Every insight or practice was once new, and therefore could be seen as 'untraditional', but each insight or practice in turn became part of the tradition. Some things might be failed experiments rather than lasting elements of the tradition, but potentially every act of worship, however bizarre or unprecedented, is part of the tradition.
Whether or not it is helpful to continually reinvent the wheel, rather than draw on inherited tradition, is another matter of course.
But one could say that acknowledging and allowing for at least some ongoing innovation or creativity—new practices from new insights—is part of the inherited tradition.
Humanity was not made for the Sabbath seems to me to perhaps have some relevance here.
Sorry to double post. I often perform routines with a messianic dancer we cross our styles.
What is a messianic dancer?
Messianic people are essentially Jews who believe Jesus is saviour, Yeshua. Though that is perhaps an over simplification.
Messianic dance is essentially Jewish dancing. Mostly in circles and in that traditional all people dance. Male and female.
Sorry to double post. I often perform routines with a messianic dancer we cross our styles.
What is a messianic dancer?
Messianic people are essentially Jews who believe Jesus is saviour, Yeshua. Though that is perhaps an over simplification.
Messianic dance is essentially Jewish dancing. Mostly in circles and in that traditional all people dance. Male and female.
I’m a Jew by blood (mother’s side), who believes in Jesus/Yeshua/Y’Shua is savior, but I’m an Episcopalian of the Anglo-Catholic variety (with a dash of Shinto), and have been getting more into my Jewish heritage after becoming a Christian at around 16 (not raised in any religion, though I make a lovely matzoh ball soup). Alas, no Jewish dancing experience.
And now “Hava nagila, have two nagilas, have three nagilas, they’re very small, hey!” 🎶 is stuck in my head.
Sorry to double post. I often perform routines with a messianic dancer we cross our styles.
What is a messianic dancer?
Messianic people are essentially Jews who believe Jesus is saviour, Yeshua. Though that is perhaps an over simplification.
Messianic dance is essentially Jewish dancing. Mostly in circles and in that traditional all people dance. Male and female.
I’m a Jew by blood (mother’s side), who believes in Jesus/Yeshua/Y’Shua is savior, but I’m an Episcopalian of the Anglo-Catholic variety (with a dash of Shinto), and have been getting more into my Jewish heritage after becoming a Christian at around 16 (not raised in any religion, though I make a lovely matzoh ball soup). Alas, no Jewish dancing experience.
And now “Hava nagila, have two nagilas, have three nagilas, they’re very small, hey!” 🎶 is stuck in my head.
Er, carry on.
I remember in Fiddler on the Roof, where the whole village engaged in a dance. The rabbi could not grasp a woman's hand, but he took out a handkerchief and allowed the woman to grab one end and he the other. Of course, that was just before the attack by the Cossacks.
I do have the CD of the Lovecraftian parody, A Shoggoth on the Roof, because of course I do because I'm weird. ("To life! To life! I'll bring them..." and "Tentacles!" to the tune of "Tradition!")
On similar lines (and risking Hostly admonition), it would be *ahem* instructive to have some insight into the liturgy of The Church Of Starry Wisdom.
Now there's an example of non-traditional worship...
I'll get me coat.
On a more serious note, some years ago I persuaded our Parochial Church Council (we had no priest-in-charge at the time) to let me start a monthly Saturday evening Taize Prayer service.
This was something quite different to our usual Sunday Mass (we used the Roman rite before the RCC changed it in 2011 or thereabouts). Apart from a couple of well-attended services early on, it never really took off, much to my disappointment, but there we go. A straw poll among the congregation, before we started the services, indicated some support and keenness, but this was not reflected in the actual numbers turning up!
A straw poll among the congregation ... indicated some support and keenness, but this was not reflected in the actual numbers turning up!
Well, there's a surprise. Good ideas in churches are always for everyone else.
I admit that I was not surprised. Cynical, moi?
Madam Vicar from Next-Door Place was keen, being an accomplished flautist (idea for Taize chants), and helped out with the initial couple of services. She was, however, unable to commit to regular assistance, having a large and very demanding parish of her own to look after!
That said, she and I collaborated for some years in organising a joint Taize service during Holy Week - alternating between our two churches - and this actually became quite popular. It ceased when she moved on, and when our present priest-in-charge arrived (at much the same time).
Our temporary DoM is finishing at Christmas, so I don’t think there will be time, but he was very keen to set up a Taizé service. Our vicar would like one, and so would I, but who else?
Next Sunday morning’s service is advertised as a contemporary service, so we are intrigued. I normally avoid our monthly family service but I might try this as it sounds less infantilising.
I thought of this thread this morning at church. It was the last Sunday where we are during the summer, and creativity, imagination and “doing things a little differently,” all within the framework of the traditional ordo, are the expectation here. That can include some music that isn’t sacred music as such, but is what might be called “sacred adjacent”—music from outside the church that works in the church.
This morning, when maybe 2/3 of the congregation had taken Communion, the choir, mostly college-age, began to sing this choral arrangement of “Crowded Table” by The Highwomen. Not a church song at all, but “sacred adjacent”—a song I have absolutely no trouble hearing as a reflection of what Christ desires. (For those not familiar with it, the lyrics are here. The choir did tweak one line just a little.)
I happened to be where I could see one line of communicants pretty well, and I saw one person in particular take Communion. He’s a fixture, as it were, well on in years and his health isn’t good. The choir began singing about the time he stepped away from the server with the chalice, and I realized as he stepped away that he was dancing. Nothing grand or choreographed—just a little side step and shuffle and sway in time with the music—but instead of walking back to his seat, he danced back to his seat. And he did dance all the way back, which wasn’t a short distance.
To put it another way, if I'm singing in F# at 120bpm, you're going to struggle to sing in C at 125bpm. But if I raise my right arm whilst you do a turn on the spot, we're not going to put each other off.
Although if I step to the right and you step to the left, we may find ourselves standing on top of each other.
I'll admit that singing different tunes at once is worse.
I thought of this thread this morning at church. It was the last Sunday where we are during the summer, and creativity, imagination and “doing things a little differently,” all within the framework of the traditional ordo, are the expectation here. That can include some music that isn’t sacred music as such, but is what might be called “sacred adjacent”—music from outside the church that works in the church.
This morning, when maybe 2/3 of the congregation had taken Communion, the choir, mostly college-age, began to sing this choral arrangement of “Crowded Table” by The Highwomen. Not a church song at all, but “sacred adjacent”—a song I have absolutely no trouble hearing as a reflection of what Christ desires. (For those not familiar with it, the lyrics are here. The choir did tweak one line just a little.)
I happened to be where I could see one line of communicants pretty well, and I saw one person in particular take Communion. He’s a fixture, as it were, well on in years and his health isn’t good. The choir began singing about the time he stepped away from the server with the chalice, and I realized as he stepped away that he was dancing. Nothing grand or choreographed—just a little side step and shuffle and sway in time with the music—but instead of walking back to his seat, he danced back to his seat. And he did dance all the way back, which wasn’t a short distance.
It was a truly beautiful thing to watch.
When I look at the lyrics to Crowded Table, I see a lot of religious imagery throughout the song. I can even see a family altar alluded to. While not directly Christian. it certainly has a message to the church. Consider this observation.
Would habitually solitary worship qualify as non-traditional?
Depends. According to ordination vows, and rules of life for Readers and Lay Ministers, Tertiary, oblates etc they're supposed to pray a Daily Office or Religious Rule once or twice a day - usually by themselves, practically speaking. Eucharistic worship should, on the other hand, always be with at least one other person. Institutionally, that's part of the package, I suppose, of belonging to those particular Churches.
And I think a lot of people do the daily 'Quiet Time' thing by themselves - praying, reading, singing. And that's maybe typical for those kind of fellowships?
If this morning’s Contemporary Worship service at my church is repeated, I shall not be attending.
I have no problem with the liturgy, but the music was sung by soloists on screen, from videos, mostly with words shown, but to me, unsingable. I need music. I cannot pick up tunes from a solo voice, with all their individual rhythmic idiosyncrasies, and sung at a pitch I cannot reach.
There was too much repetition, verse after verse of the same words, though I found no objection to the words themselves.
On two occasions we were asked to speak in twos and threes, firstly what we would take to a desert island, secondly stories involving bread in the Bible. Harmless enough, but a waste of time? The whole service lasted an hour and twenty minutes, which was 40 minutes too long, for what it was.
Your vicar could benefit from feedback, I'm sure. Given that the service appears to have been something of an experiment, hopefully s/he will be willing to make some adjustments, particularly to the musical side of things.
ISTM that your choir could, if involved, have made all the difference - maybe next time?
People on this thread may enjoy a story. At my first Liturgical conference the openning speaker quoted Horton Davies saying something along the lines that there was a place for the old style worship. As the conference was heavily dominated by Anglican and Catholics I felt that it was heard if not intended to by the speaker as back BCP and traditional mass.
There was one snag with this Horton Davies, although his work is ecumenical, was a Congregationalist. Old-style worship to him was not standard liturgy at all but the people God gathered to hear the Word of God Sunday by Sunday. At one end a preached service with the minister in black giving the sermon and choir led hymns, at the other a communal gathering with favourite hymns punctuating an established form that led to an elder* leading the congregation through the Word for that Sunday. Both extremes would have had communion held once a month after the tea.
*"elder" is used as a portmanteau word to cover, minister, lay preachers and those recognised as having something valuable to say within the congregation. It does not formally correspond to the office of Elder which is in itself hugely complex.
In 2007 I went to a very strange conference at the URC's Westminster College in Cambridge. It's title "Reforming Worship" belied its thrust, which was very much to get back to good, solid, traditional Reformed worship styles. It's chief proponent was the late Ernest Marvin who honestly seemed to think that, if the churches did this, all their problems would go away.
Could we have a form of worship, necessarily non-traditional, that could exist on the Web but on corpus? We could have sermons created by a community over a wiki, for instance.
Comments
By way of examples, I think there's more readiness to
- have anything on a Sunday rather than nothing
- give wide latitude to worship styles that are offered on the basis of point one, and the difficulties going anywhere else/lack of other options
- accept that most services will be non-eucharistic
- accept that some services won't even have licenced readers (and consequently won't have preaching, even, just hymns and prayers) - but, if you want a service at all...
In some ways, it's radically traditional, or traditionally radical, but it stems from great flexibility of mind (borne out of necessity).
Indeed - hence radically traditional, 'traditionally radical' is more that we're being forced to go back to old ways of doing things after perhaps 70 years (at least) of default expectation of weekly Eucharist. There are people in their 80s in our congregation who've never know it another way.
Communion every week was something that was largely restricted to Roman Catholics (who hardly ever received), Anglo-Catholics and Brethren.
As referenced by John Betjeman in his poem on the death of George V, going to Communion once a month was what was usual and worthy, unless one landed hatless from the air, in which case it was assumed one didn't go at all.
Before the mid-nineteenth century the practice was different. A typical Sunday morning was Morning Prayer, Litany, Antecommunion (i.e. first half of BCP Communion Service), Sermon. The service only followed through to consecration and communion on a Sacrament Sunday when people might have been expected to have given their names in a week before. These might only be monthly or even three times a year. Evening Prayer then was often mid-afternoon, followed by sermon.
More frequent Communion attendance has only become widespread since the various newer forms of service began to come in.
So weekly Communion was indeed (say it quietly) an Innovation (as were Vestments, but that's another story).
/Ends.
To be fair, though, this isn't directly comparable. Multiple tunes being sung at once make it hard for each particular singer to sing the tune they are singing because the frequencies interfere; multiple dance moves do not do that. This is why Silent Discos can work without having to also blindfold the participants.
To put it another way, if I'm singing in F# at 120bpm, you're going to struggle to sing in C at 125bpm. But if I raise my right arm whilst you do a turn on the spot, we're not going to put each other off.
All the small village churches I know around here have very much settled into one particular style.
Well if they’re all thriving then great.
The other model, I’ve experienced it in a couple of dioceses now, might not lead away from extinction, but it does seem to get more of the village into at least some of the services.
The restoration work was complete and the church people moved back to the church building with traditional services every Sunday. The Village Hall and the newcomers were left behind. I find this very sad.
To what extent do you feel that sort of varying worship fosters a common identity? Or do you - which is what I've observed - feel that people come to think of their bit of the mixed economy as 'the church' ?
They aren't. But they don't know how to do anything else.
My observation is that there’s a core that goes to everything, and a fringe that changes - certainly in the church I attend. It’s of a piece with other village activities, in that people seem minded to support things they’re not that into, to make them viable for the people that really value them - church (and within church particular services), WI, etc.
Under no illusions that it is magically stopping the rot, even in my own parish, but it does at least seem to be holding back the tide for a bit.
And a sensible one. But ... but ... that couldn't happen because the Village Hall wasn't a proper church!
(I'm sure that Christian discipleship is supposed to be a sequence of radical steps, though it doesn't often seem to work out like that).
OTOH, the sort of mixed economy mentioned (and fostered!
I've just helped my local church to roll the dice, that's all. It seems to be currently successful, but (as a layman with no more responsibility than PCC membership) all I'm doing is trying.
I'm slightly personally invested by being early 40s, and consequently having one eye on trying to keep the show on the road into the future, but that's it.
I suppose we're getting off topic, but, if it works, do it...
That’s awesome. Seriously, i wish we had more of that sort of maturity.
I could have been clearer! The 'tradition' we have inherited (or traditions) have evolved over the centuries as generations of Christians have expressed their faith in worship. Every insight or practice was once new, and therefore could be seen as 'untraditional', but each insight or practice in turn became part of the tradition. Some things might be failed experiments rather than lasting elements of the tradition, but potentially every act of worship, however bizarre or unprecedented, is part of the tradition.
Whether or not it is helpful to continually reinvent the wheel, rather than draw on inherited tradition, is another matter of course.
Humanity was not made for the Sabbath seems to me to perhaps have some relevance here.
Why the 'but'? I agree with you.
Messianic people are essentially Jews who believe Jesus is saviour, Yeshua. Though that is perhaps an over simplification.
Messianic dance is essentially Jewish dancing. Mostly in circles and in that traditional all people dance. Male and female.
I’m a Jew by blood (mother’s side), who believes in Jesus/Yeshua/Y’Shua is savior, but I’m an Episcopalian of the Anglo-Catholic variety (with a dash of Shinto), and have been getting more into my Jewish heritage after becoming a Christian at around 16 (not raised in any religion, though I make a lovely matzoh ball soup). Alas, no Jewish dancing experience.
And now “Hava nagila, have two nagilas, have three nagilas, they’re very small, hey!” 🎶 is stuck in my head.
Er, carry on.
I remember in Fiddler on the Roof, where the whole village engaged in a dance. The rabbi could not grasp a woman's hand, but he took out a handkerchief and allowed the woman to grab one end and he the other. Of course, that was just before the attack by the Cossacks.
I have - in a Dream...or was it a Dream??
Now there's an example of non-traditional worship...
I'll get me coat.
On a more serious note, some years ago I persuaded our Parochial Church Council (we had no priest-in-charge at the time) to let me start a monthly Saturday evening Taize Prayer service.
This was something quite different to our usual Sunday Mass (we used the Roman rite before the RCC changed it in 2011 or thereabouts). Apart from a couple of well-attended services early on, it never really took off, much to my disappointment, but there we go. A straw poll among the congregation, before we started the services, indicated some support and keenness, but this was not reflected in the actual numbers turning up!
I admit that I was not surprised. Cynical, moi?
Madam Vicar from Next-Door Place was keen, being an accomplished flautist (idea for Taize chants), and helped out with the initial couple of services. She was, however, unable to commit to regular assistance, having a large and very demanding parish of her own to look after!
That said, she and I collaborated for some years in organising a joint Taize service during Holy Week - alternating between our two churches - and this actually became quite popular. It ceased when she moved on, and when our present priest-in-charge arrived (at much the same time).
Next Sunday morning’s service is advertised as a contemporary service, so we are intrigued. I normally avoid our monthly family service but I might try this as it sounds less infantilising.
This morning, when maybe 2/3 of the congregation had taken Communion, the choir, mostly college-age, began to sing this choral arrangement of “Crowded Table” by The Highwomen. Not a church song at all, but “sacred adjacent”—a song I have absolutely no trouble hearing as a reflection of what Christ desires. (For those not familiar with it, the lyrics are here. The choir did tweak one line just a little.)
I happened to be where I could see one line of communicants pretty well, and I saw one person in particular take Communion. He’s a fixture, as it were, well on in years and his health isn’t good. The choir began singing about the time he stepped away from the server with the chalice, and I realized as he stepped away that he was dancing. Nothing grand or choreographed—just a little side step and shuffle and sway in time with the music—but instead of walking back to his seat, he danced back to his seat. And he did dance all the way back, which wasn’t a short distance.
It was a truly beautiful thing to watch.
Although if I step to the right and you step to the left, we may find ourselves standing on top of each other.
I'll admit that singing different tunes at once is worse.
When I look at the lyrics to Crowded Table, I see a lot of religious imagery throughout the song. I can even see a family altar alluded to. While not directly Christian. it certainly has a message to the church. Consider this observation.
Depends. According to ordination vows, and rules of life for Readers and Lay Ministers, Tertiary, oblates etc they're supposed to pray a Daily Office or Religious Rule once or twice a day - usually by themselves, practically speaking. Eucharistic worship should, on the other hand, always be with at least one other person. Institutionally, that's part of the package, I suppose, of belonging to those particular Churches.
And I think a lot of people do the daily 'Quiet Time' thing by themselves - praying, reading, singing. And that's maybe typical for those kind of fellowships?
I have no problem with the liturgy, but the music was sung by soloists on screen, from videos, mostly with words shown, but to me, unsingable. I need music. I cannot pick up tunes from a solo voice, with all their individual rhythmic idiosyncrasies, and sung at a pitch I cannot reach.
There was too much repetition, verse after verse of the same words, though I found no objection to the words themselves.
On two occasions we were asked to speak in twos and threes, firstly what we would take to a desert island, secondly stories involving bread in the Bible. Harmless enough, but a waste of time? The whole service lasted an hour and twenty minutes, which was 40 minutes too long, for what it was.
Your vicar could benefit from feedback, I'm sure. Given that the service appears to have been something of an experiment, hopefully s/he will be willing to make some adjustments, particularly to the musical side of things.
ISTM that your choir could, if involved, have made all the difference - maybe next time?
Yes - thank you @Gramps49 ; that's beautiful.
There was one snag with this Horton Davies, although his work is ecumenical, was a Congregationalist. Old-style worship to him was not standard liturgy at all but the people God gathered to hear the Word of God Sunday by Sunday. At one end a preached service with the minister in black giving the sermon and choir led hymns, at the other a communal gathering with favourite hymns punctuating an established form that led to an elder* leading the congregation through the Word for that Sunday. Both extremes would have had communion held once a month after the tea.
*"elder" is used as a portmanteau word to cover, minister, lay preachers and those recognised as having something valuable to say within the congregation. It does not formally correspond to the office of Elder which is in itself hugely complex.
Indeed. What is traditional in one denomination might well be breaking the walls down revolutionary in another place.