@fineline I would definitely not consider myself to be better than others! I don't think that's an inherent part of snobbery. I may think that others have bad taste (in a purely aesthetic sense) but I don't think this says anything bad about them as a person, or anything superior about me as a person. I like the things I like because I think they're better - I wouldn't like them if I didn't think they were better. It's not because I think I'm better. I also think a lot of "traditional" churches have terrible taste, and I know many would also hate my taste (I love brutalist RC church buildings for eg and a more austere/monastic type of High Churchery as opposed to lots of tat - although I will say that when it's so tat-tastic it goes over into high camp I can appreciate it!).
By "not really church" I meant a service rather than a congregation/ekklesia. I would understand the word "church" as referring to both senses of the term so I should have been clearer. I don't think that every service needs to be a Eucharistic service - I am all for BCP Mattins and Evensong for eg, which are specifically non-Eucharistic - but equally I would not view a discussion group for eg (like the example given of Pub Church) as a church service. The whole of the service is (imo) supposed to be worship, not just any singing. I would be much more inclined to see a Quaker meeting for worship as a church service than Messy Church for example - and theologically speaking I am definitely Not a Quaker.
@pomona 'Snob' is an interesting word, because at one point it meant 'A person who has little or no breeding or good taste; a vulgar or ostentatious person.'
And then morphed into 'A person who admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of higher social status or greater wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance.'
And then 'A person who despises those whom he or she considers to be inferior in rank, attainment, or taste. Frequently in extended sense, with defining word limiting its reference to a particular sphere.'
(Quotes from the OED)
So in the extended sense of the last definition, it can be used for specific things like books or music or tea, but does still carry that sense of despising what is seen as inferior. (I've been called a tea snob in the past, but I say I'm not, because I don't despise the existence of certain teas, nor sneer at the people who drink them. I just merrily go about finding and drinking the tea I personally like.)
Taste is obviously a subjective thing, and equally people can enjoy something even while knowing it's not high art or haute cuisine, for instance. I enjoy good quality wine with a bag of Asda Cheesy Wiggles! And I love going to the opera, and I also love going to see an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical - I know opera has all sorts of subtleties and beauty that Lloyd Webber doesn't have, and I appreciate it on a whole different level, but I love a bit of Joseph fun too! There are also foods and music I don't like - I have no interest in going go to a pop concert, for instance - but to me, the snobbery level would be sneering at those things I don't like and those who like them, rather than simply saying I don't like them.
I suppose with church, I've found throughout my life that I don't seem to be the majority in what I like, and I generally don't fit in. So I am used to new church initiatives being something I probably wouldn't like, and I don't see that as automatically inherently bad. But to me, the more a church allows for and embraces diversity, the better. And to me, that is also about making individuals feel heard, feel valued, as part of the body of Christ. To me, we worship Christ by how we treat each other, as we are part of Christ. In the same way that some nuns bow whenever they pass another nun in the corridor, because each nun is Christ, Christ being in us and us in him.
...and yet, that Church blithely ignores those of its parishes who use the Roman Catholic forms of service in their entirety.
A subject for a Hell thread, maybe?
Indeed - though I'd draw a distinction between individual churches that do what they want while theoretically/occasionally being hit by the centre with 'not in the authorised liturgies - desist', and church central then saying 'here're some things not in the authorised liturgies, why not give them a go?!'
I know we're veering a bit off the subject: but all our church tradition, whether Anglican, Catholic, Reformed or whatever, have evolved over the years and are very different to what "services" would have been like for the early Christians. Arguably the ways of "doing church" varied from place to place - I'd have expected the Jerusalem church to be a sort of "Christian synagogue", while the Corinth one was clearly more free-flowing, charismatic and centred around a meal - indeed Paul had to reign in some of its more extreme elements.
I claim no expertise on the New Testament churches - but I think that their services bore little resemblance to Eucharist at St Agatha's, Family Worship at Anytown Baptist, or even Divine Liturgy at St Nikolaos. Although I'd be extremely surprised to discover that the early churches did "crafting", it could be that their worship style was closer to "Messy Church" than some advocates of "Proper Church" might be comfortable with.
Here is the problem, I think you need to distinguish "What is Church?" for "What is authorised Worship?" The two questions differ in meaning. There is a lot that is Church that is not Authorised Worship, be it coffee hour after worship to the meeting of the finance committee and within those elements of worship may or may not occur.
What is more worship is not confined to the authorised. There may be some home groups somewhere in the Church of England that end their meeting with Evening Prayer according the BCP but I suspect that the majority of occassions where they exist the form of worship is an informal of no particular rite maybe with some flavour of the tradition e.g. in Anglo Catholic you might get a Hail Mary included. Worship exists in all traditions in a much broader and richer former than the authorised worship services. Just look at the variety of Marian devotion that exists within Roman Catholicism for starters. If a demonination is wise it seeks to own these as part of its being the Church.
Seriously, though, I once found myself in a vociferous minority at an ecumenical conference when I objected to the idea of non-eucharistic services being the norm in some Fresh Expressions settings within Anglicanism.
Even some of the Orthodox participants didn't have any issue with it. Perhaps because they hadn't been subjected to action-songs and poster paint.
We have our own 'actions' of course.
Proper ones ... 😉
I am impressed though by those like @Cathscats and @Spike who appear to have made these things work. Alas, I don't think @betjemaniac is alone in his experience of these things.
I know of a semi-rural church where the incumbent had been a street-entertainer before ordination. He entranced the kids in the village primary school with his conjuring tricks and legerdemain and lo and behold many of them came to church bringing their parents with them.
For a time the 'Family Services' were packed. Then he moved away. Numbers reverted pretty much to how they'd been before.
Ok, so I understand that 'Messy Church' and its equivalents are supposed to be 'church' in and of themselves and not a 'gateway' into more traditional services.
But from what I've seen everyone tends to clear off as soon as the kids get too old for poster paints and action-songs.
But then you are talking to a curmudgeonly old git who has a lot of sympathy with the Anglican Archdeacon who said that 'Fresh Expressions' sounds like a new brand of cat litter tray.
Daughter helped start a Pub Church a couple of years ago. Once a month, a group of Christians who enjoy a brew now and then come together to raise a frothy one and s have a discussion about one of the pericopes. Lasts about an hour. Has attracted the interest of another of other people who share the pub.
Point is, as mentioned before, no one medium meets the needs of all. One reason why there was a Great Division, and then a Reformation, and the rise of denominationalism. What unites us is not how we do things but whom we confess.
Ok, but if by the 'Great Division' you mean the 'Great Schism' of 1054AD (rather than those 500 years earlier), then I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with action-songs and poster paint.
I don't think those were mentioned in Luther's 95 Theses either.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
If I remember rightly, most of those denominational divisions arose over disputes about church government or knotty theological issues rather than particular worship styles and preferences.
It's not as if there was a great deal of difference in worship style, for want of a better phrase, between East and West in the 11th century.
'If anyone uses puppets or poster paint, let them be anathema.'
When I grew up in an Anglican Church of Canada parish in the 1970s, non-eucharistic services were the norm for the main morning service, GG. I long for the return of those days although I have left said parish and church for other reasons.
When I grew up in an Anglican Church of Canada parish in the 1970s, non-eucharistic services were the norm for the main morning service...
<snip>
Same for me in the UK in the 1950s and 60s! Mind you, it was a very low church parish.
There is a certain irony in the fact that Cranmer, and other reformers, intended the Eucharist to be the principal service on the Lord's Day, which didn't really happen in this country until the 19thC and early 20thC revivals, Parish Communion movement etc..
Messy Church in our church happens once a month, on a Sunday afternoon. So if it isn't your thing (and it isn't my thing) you can just not go. It attracts some people who don't come to Sunday morning services and is, therefore, IMO a Good Thing.
I don't go to it mostly because I felt that I had reached my limit as a volunteer for church activities, and didn't want to find myself volunteering for anything else.
When I grew up in an Anglican Church of Canada parish in the 1970s, non-eucharistic services were the norm for the main morning service...
<snip>
Same for me in the UK in the 1950s and 60s! Mind you, it was a very low church parish.
There is a certain irony in the fact that Cranmer, and other reformers, intended the Eucharist to be the principal service on the Lord's Day, which didn't really happen in this country until the 19thC and early 20thC revivals, Parish Communion movement etc..
Yes, I think for many Low CofE churches Mattins was the main thing until the early 60s when Parish Communion came in.
I've suggested it in the past for Our Place, but, realistically, we simply don't have the volunteers required. Mind you, if parents etc. were also themselves involved, staffing might be easier, but it's rather a chicken-and-egg situation, given that we don't have the families in the first place!
As I recall the Common Worship 'Service of the Word' is flexible enough to encompass almost anything.
I was unfamiliar with this and looked it up. I was intrigued by
Telling that story and expounding it in the ‘sermon’ can be done in many different and adventurous ways.
Can't recall many sermons delivered in adventurous ways myself. Clearly going to the wrong places.
I did this on Trinity Sunday, this year. Gave a two part sermon. Since it is very hard to explain the Trinity, I used a short video from the Bible Project which traced the concept of Trinity through the OT took about six minutes. Then I gave a short homily on the call of Wisdom which was the first lesson. Dealing with the Call of Wisdom, I also gave a handout showing the enticement of Folly which is in the previous chapter of Proverbs, showing them both side by side.
In the past, I have used dramatic readings, taking on a Biblical character, ha)ving quick Bible studies.
I find reasons why pastors seldom do these things are 1) it is not in their skill set, and 2) congregations resist the use of other media forms.
Daughter helped start a Pub Church a couple of years ago. Once a month, a group of Christians who enjoy a brew now and then come together to raise a frothy one and s have a discussion about one of the pericopes. Lasts about an hour. Has attracted the interest of another of other people who share the pub.
Point is, as mentioned before, no one medium meets the needs of all. One reason why there was a Great Division, and then a Reformation, and the rise of denominationalism. What unites us is not how we do things but whom we confess.
Ok, but if by the 'Great Division' you mean the 'Great Schism' of 1054AD (rather than those 500 years earlier), then I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with action-songs and poster paint.
I don't think those were mentioned in Luther's 95 Theses either.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
If I remember rightly, most of those denominational divisions arose over disputes about church government or knotty theological issues rather than particular worship styles and preferences.
It's not as if there was a great deal of difference in worship style, for want of a better phrase, between East and West in the 11th century.
'If anyone uses puppets or poster paint, let them be anathema.'
In my thesaurus, Division and Schism are synonymous. The disunity happened because of a mix of political, cultural and theological disagreements. As a result, the Divine Service of the Eastern church than the basic Mass of the Western Church are quite different.
One of the key issues of the Lutheran part of the Reformation was the restoring of the worship style of the Mass, doing away with elements that, in the opinion of Lutherans at the time detracted from the Gospel. (e.g. praying to the saints or the Virgin). That, and the increased use of hymnology.
Calvin wanted to strip down worship even more. changing even the order of worship. Still is followed by many Reformed churches.
I stand by what I said.
And if puppets and poster paints get the Gospel across, so be it. BTW puppets were even in use by the church before the Reformation.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
I think you are several centuries out: English Nonconformism, at least, had quite a number of sects before 1650.
But not denominations. The fluidity of sects is quite remarkable. I think I have told on these boards that in 1972 there was at least one congregation which had to write to the Congregational Church of England and Wales and explain that it could not join the URC, not because the vote was against it, but because it was Baptist by its deeds and had to do some legal work first. Presbyterianism, the only form church ecclesiology among Reformation Non-Conformists that naturally led to denominational structure had its wiped out in the early eighteenth century with the rise of Unitarianism. The Presbyterian Church of England was around 80% plants by 19th Century Scots Immigrants with most of the exceptions being in Northumbria and Cumbria.
Right up to 1972 there were Union Chapels that belonged to more than one denomination. At that stage only Baptist and Congregational but historically there had been other combinations. Dore was one that had to decide it was Congregational in order to join the URC. Rosehill in Chesterfield was the descendant of a congregation that was Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational though had already decided it was Congregational by 1972.
These were not LEPS (Local Ecumenical Projects) but arose out of the situation after the act of toleration in the 17th century where often there were not enough Nonconformist of a single persuasion to form a grouping of a specific sect so sects combined together to form a congregation.
Daughter helped start a Pub Church a couple of years ago. Once a month, a group of Christians who enjoy a brew now and then come together to raise a frothy one and s have a discussion about one of the pericopes. Lasts about an hour. Has attracted the interest of another of other people who share the pub.
Point is, as mentioned before, no one medium meets the needs of all. One reason why there was a Great Division, and then a Reformation, and the rise of denominationalism. What unites us is not how we do things but whom we confess.
Ok, but if by the 'Great Division' you mean the 'Great Schism' of 1054AD (rather than those 500 years earlier), then I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with action-songs and poster paint.
I don't think those were mentioned in Luther's 95 Theses either.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
If I remember rightly, most of those denominational divisions arose over disputes about church government or knotty theological issues rather than particular worship styles and preferences.
It's not as if there was a great deal of difference in worship style, for want of a better phrase, between East and West in the 11th century.
'If anyone uses puppets or poster paint, let them be anathema.'
In my thesaurus, Division and Schism are synonymous. The disunity happened because of a mix of political, cultural and theological disagreements. As a result, the Divine Service of the Eastern church than the basic Mass of the Western Church are quite different.
One of the key issues of the Lutheran part of the Reformation was the restoring of the worship style of the Mass, doing away with elements that, in the opinion of Lutherans at the time detracted from the Gospel. (e.g. praying to the saints or the Virgin). That, and the increased use of hymnology.
Calvin wanted to strip down worship even more. changing even the order of worship. Still is followed by many Reformed churches.
I stand by what I said.
And if puppets and poster paints get the Gospel across, so be it. BTW puppets were even in use by the church before the Reformation.
No, the Western and Eastern liturgies didn't diverge substantially until some time after the Schism. So no, I don't accept what you said and like @Nick Tamen I issue a similar challenge to your misrepresentation of Calvin's position.
What you have said though, quite rightly, is that the disunity happened because of 'a mix of political, cultural and theological disagreements.'
That's very different to matters of worship style and preference.
@Baptist Trainfan - I agree with @Jengie Jon. 17th century Dissenting sects weren't operating under the same assumptions as 19th century denominationalism, although I'll grant that the seeds of that were sown in the two centuries beforehand.
That may sound like a pedantic point and a matter of semantics but I think it's true to say that 'denominationalism' as we understand it today largely comes from 19th century rivalries and emphases.
It's certainly the case, though, that a thoroughly eirenic figure like Richard Baxter regarded the RCs, the 'Greeks' and 'Ethiopians' as variations on a theme alongside the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Anabaptists and other Dissenting groups. But he wouldn't have seen them as denominations in the way that we do today.
Anyhow, as for whether the Gospel can be conveyed through puppets and poster-paint, yes, of course it can. That's not the issue. I know all our structures and organisations are provisional, at least in their temporal form, but I do wonder how sustainable longer-term initiatives like Messy Church are.
From my own observations I can't say I've seen them lead people into the 'regular' services of whichever church hosts them. Perhaps that's not the point.
The lack of a sense of "denominations" can perhaps still be seen in vestigial form in the ability of the monarch to be a member in good standing in the Kirk while also being Supreme Governor of the CofE.
The question of sustainability of Messy church matters very little. If it works now, use it. If it dies out after a few years, there will be something different.
This reminds me of Contemporary Christian Worship--a big hit in the 70s through 90s. Now, not so much. Except in Finland, where heavy rock seems to be the thing in worship there.
For me, the church is not some static entity but a living body as long as the Word is preached, and the Sacraments are used, the form is of little consequence.
I am thinking of the Rock and Roll Services of the Baby Boom Generation. We are dying out, you know. You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Liturgists much prefer a more balanced approach, now.
Every year thousands of new hymns are boing published. Few will make a hymnal. Seems like it was not just a few years ago, we had a gripe session of the likes of Martin Haugen. There are much newer writers out there now.
You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Perhaps you don’t, but it’s probably not a good idea to generalize from your own experience. I hear it often enough. And even in the 70s,
I never heard it in a Rock and Roll style.
You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Perhaps you don’t, but it’s probably not a good idea to generalize from your own experience. I hear it often enough. And even in the 70s,
I never heard it in a Rock and Roll style.
You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Perhaps you don’t, but it’s probably not a good idea to generalize from your own experience. I hear it often enough. And even in the 70s,
I never heard it in a Rock and Roll style.
Okay, Folk Rock.
Not usually. I’ve usually heard it on piano or organ.
I am thinking of the Rock and Roll Services of the Baby Boom Generation. We are dying out, you know. You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Liturgists much prefer a more balanced approach, now.
Every year thousands of new hymns are boing published. Few will make a hymnal. Seems like it was not just a few years ago, we had a gripe session of the likes of Martin Haugen. There are much newer writers out there now.
Well the churches I'm thinking of generally don't have liturgists. What is Hillsong's music or Bethel's music if not CCW?
You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Perhaps you don’t, but it’s probably not a good idea to generalize from your own experience. I hear it often enough. And even in the 70s,
I never heard it in a Rock and Roll style.
Okay, Folk Rock.
Not usually. I’ve usually heard it on piano or organ.
I agree with @Jengie Jon. 17th century Dissenting sects weren't operating under the same assumptions as 19th century denominationalism, although I'll grant that the seeds of that were sown in the two centuries beforehand.
That may sound like a pedantic point and a matter of semantics but I think it's true to say that 'denominationalism' as we understand it today largely comes from 19th century rivalries and emphases.
Fair enough, and I'd want to add "institutionalism" to that. Local Baptist Associations existed long before the denomination per se, with the Baptist Union only playing a major role in the churches from about 1860.
Sure. I think we can certainly agree on that @Baptist Trainfan, and on much else besides.
There were, of course, 'Connexions' within early Methodist circles. 'The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion' was a prime example.
I s'pose I'd think of Baptist and other 'associations' back then as being proto denominational but I may be stretching a point too far.
@Gramps49 - Heck, I'm Orthodox and I don't see the Church as being static either - even though we Orthies fondly imagine that we've not undergone any change or development.
Remember what the late Jaroslav Pelikan, a convert from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy said, 'Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.'
I'm not sure your folk rock / rock and roll worship thing holds in terms of something to bolster your point.
Those people I know who were into CCM and worship songs and choruses back in the '80s are either still into that now or have else moved onto other things such as contemplative prayer or more liturgical or sacramental forms of worship (as I have).
Would a 5 year old kid playing with poster paint in Messy Church this week still be doing that in 15 or 20 years time?
People keep saying that Messy Church isn't an entry-level introduction to traditional services or even contemporary ones.
What @Spike and @Cathscats tell us in impressive and I have no reason to doubt what they say.
But I still don't get it.
Most of the people involved in Messy Church in the places I know drop out when they get too old for action-songs and poster paint.
It might be fun while it lasts but where does it take them?
Equally, of course, the historic Churches have tended to haemorrhage youngsters when they reach their teens.
Most of the people involved in Messy Church in the places I know drop out when they get too old for action-songs and poster paint.
It might be fun while it lasts but where does it take them?
Equally, of course, the historic Churches have tended to haemorrhage youngsters when they reach their teens.
I suspect Messy Church probably makes things even worse; because it's deliberately doing the kinds of things that are classed as 'childish' and thus exactly the sort of thing teenagers are desperate to distance themselves from.
Maybe, but Messy Church is also intended to involve adults - parents/carers/volunteers etc. - and some of these, perhaps previously unchurched, may well become active Christians, and even members of the main congregation.
Teenagers are another matter altogether, I agree! We have a few at Our Place (not necessarily every Sunday), and two of them seem happy to simply be part of the congregation. Two others are happy to dress up as servers on High Days and Holy Days, and one of them is proving to be a competent thurifer.
Most of the people involved in Messy Church in the places I know drop out when they get too old for action-songs and poster paint.
It might be fun while it lasts but where does it take them?
Equally, of course, the historic Churches have tended to haemorrhage youngsters when they reach their teens.
I have no idea how to resolve that.
I think you have hit on the nub of the problem ... to which I don't have an answer either.
How much is it a ‘problem’ though? Historically children went to church in much larger numbers, mostly fell away in their teens, and then some came back at some point later.
The biggest problem now is IMO that we’ve got generations that never went at all so can’t ’come back’ later on.
My (very young) children go to church with me. If they fall away when they’re 13, and never come back then at least they’ll know what they’re not going to.
Yes, but from the admittedly vetu small sample I know the adults involved in Messy Church - other than the volunteer helpers - tend to drop out when the kids do.
They don't go onto any form of involvement with the 'main' congregation.
They do not 'Pass Go'. They do not collect their '£200.'
I'm told that this isn't the point of it. That Messy Church is church in and of itself.
If so, and I have a lot of sympathy with what @chrisstiles has just contributed, then are we expecting people to remain in a constant state of puerility?
My kids dropped out of church involvement during their teens. They hated the hard-sell of the rah-rah-rah Christian youth camps they attended.
They were a lot more street-wise than I was at their age.
Are we expecting people to remain in a constant state of puerility?
I think that this is an important question. One does, however, have to ask how much "traditional" church - especially if there is a strong desire for short, simple and comfy sermons (or none!) - contributes to spiritual maturity.
The "Reformed" model of worship naturally has its faults, notably a lack of "numinosity" and an over-emphasis on rationality. But if it is done well it does ask for real intellectual engagement with Scripture and Christian teaching.
Most of the people involved in Messy Church in the places I know drop out when they get too old for action-songs and poster paint.
It might be fun while it lasts but where does it take them?
Equally, of course, the historic Churches have tended to haemorrhage youngsters when they reach their teens.
I have no idea how to resolve that.
I think you have hit on the nub of the problem ... to which I don't have an answer either.
Since the subject's come up--
My congregation(s) actually found an answer to the "young people drop out right after confirmation" (age 13 or so) thing. What we discovered was that young people stay, if you deliberately involve them in adult responsibilities and service starting a year or two before standard drop-out age. And I do mean adult--we started apprenticing our young people to the treasurer, the trustees (who run the building, boiler, etc.), the secretary (computer work etc.) and the musicians. Our goal was that they would learn by doing from the very beginning--because we had a lot of elders desperate to retire, and we needed to slot people into those empty roles. You will probably not be nearly as desperate as we were, but I have to say, the obvious need we had for these young people's service made it very very clear to them that none of this was "make work"--we really needed them, if they weren't there or didn't do something it was going to hurt everybody, and their service was truly appreciated.
As you can see, this is the total opposite of what most congregations I know do with their young people. They tend to indulge them with pizza parties and skating, or the occasional deliberately "made for youth" service projects like short term mission trips or running a youth service once a year. But in my opinion that sort of thing is infantilizing--it suggests that we can't trust them with the real work. I'm not surprised they leave!
The other thing involving them in real work does is to create completely natural situations where they get to know other adults and really, people of all ages, and develop friendships with them. That also ties them more firmly into the congregation.
Anyway, I'm throwing this out here for anyone it might be useful to. We've tested it in two locations so far, with both Vietnamese and mainline American culture congregations. So far it really works. Some of those kids have gone on into ministry or into public service (such as with the USAID stuff that Trump is now cutting, drat).
I agree with LambChopped, the way to keep church youth is for them to be part of the church family. We encourage our youth to get involved with church activity, whether being part of the worship team, children’s work, serving coffees or doing the sound system. We also encourage regular inclusive socials of all ages, either across the church or in smaller localities (our membership is about 300-400 and spread across town). Our services are called the Morning Service and the Evening Service, and we don’t use terminology like ‘Family Worship’ despite the morning service having all age children’s groups and only have older children and youth groups in the evening.
And yes, I do think @Baptist Trainfan that the rest of us could certainly take a leaf out of the Reformed/reformed book when it comes to preaching and teaching.
I won't name names, but some of you will know who I mean, but I know an Orthodox priest who is struggling to keep up with the number of catechumens in his parish. He is somewhat put out that 'mono-ethnic' Orthodox parishes in his city are sending people his way rather than catechising them themselves.
I won't name names, but some of you will know who I mean, but I know an Orthodox priest who is struggling to keep up with the number of catechumens in his parish. He is somewhat put out that 'mono-ethnic' Orthodox parishes in his city are sending people his way rather than catechising them themselves.
This i completely sympathize with, as it has been the custom of the local (later-planted) Vietnamese churches of all denominations in town to wait until we convert and catechize people, and THEN to employ various tactics to get them to attend their own churches… i mean, fine, be that way, we aren’t going to run out of members, but surely there are enough non-believers out there that you could lend a hand from the beginning instead of expecting us to do everything!!! Grrrrrrrr
Sure. I don't know about Vietnamese churches, but in 'mono-cultural' Orthodox parishes - and many in the 'disapora' are no longer that way of course - the expectation is that 'cradle-Orthodox' pick things up by osmosis. They aren't used to receiving enquirers and catechumens from outside their own ethnic or cultural group.
There have been notable exceptions of course.
What I'm finding, as an aside, is that as well as enquirers from other Christian traditions we are getting previously unchurched people and also nominally or culturally Orthodox who have developed an interest in their latent faith since migrating to this country.
Having such a mixed group is certainly a challenge in catechetical terms but it is a nettle we need to grasp.
Palming responsibility onto a parish that is a bit further down that particular road isn't the right way to go about this.
What do we want?
More catechesis!
When do we want it?
Now!
What I'm finding, as an aside, is that as well as enquirers from other Christian traditions we are getting previously unchurched people and also nominally or culturally Orthodox who have developed an interest in their latent faith since migrating to this country.
Having such a mixed group is certainly a challenge in catechetical terms but it is a nettle we need to grasp.
That is the situation in our church. We have people from various Eastern European countries who were baptised as infants and grew up within the church in Communist times, but received no instruction in the faith. They have been pleased to join our catechesis group alongside those seeking entry into our church as well as those recently received and who wish to consolidate and extend their knowledge.
True, but really. (waves hands) Surely, surely there's someone, almost anyone, in the church who can at least take a whack at teaching the basics, even if they have to go find a mentor to show them how to do it, or get books or something? I mean, the hardest bit (conversion) is already done for them.
I suppose I'm unsympathetic. But I was doing this stuff at age eighteen for want of any other English-speaker to cope with the up and coming generations.
Comments
Indeed it is, and so, to a lesser degree, is the Eucharist.
I was unfamiliar with this and looked it up. I was intrigued by
Can't recall many sermons delivered in adventurous ways myself. Clearly going to the wrong places.
By "not really church" I meant a service rather than a congregation/ekklesia. I would understand the word "church" as referring to both senses of the term so I should have been clearer. I don't think that every service needs to be a Eucharistic service - I am all for BCP Mattins and Evensong for eg, which are specifically non-Eucharistic - but equally I would not view a discussion group for eg (like the example given of Pub Church) as a church service. The whole of the service is (imo) supposed to be worship, not just any singing. I would be much more inclined to see a Quaker meeting for worship as a church service than Messy Church for example - and theologically speaking I am definitely Not a Quaker.
And then morphed into 'A person who admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of higher social status or greater wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance.'
And then 'A person who despises those whom he or she considers to be inferior in rank, attainment, or taste. Frequently in extended sense, with defining word limiting its reference to a particular sphere.'
(Quotes from the OED)
So in the extended sense of the last definition, it can be used for specific things like books or music or tea, but does still carry that sense of despising what is seen as inferior. (I've been called a tea snob in the past, but I say I'm not, because I don't despise the existence of certain teas, nor sneer at the people who drink them. I just merrily go about finding and drinking the tea I personally like.)
Taste is obviously a subjective thing, and equally people can enjoy something even while knowing it's not high art or haute cuisine, for instance. I enjoy good quality wine with a bag of Asda Cheesy Wiggles! And I love going to the opera, and I also love going to see an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical - I know opera has all sorts of subtleties and beauty that Lloyd Webber doesn't have, and I appreciate it on a whole different level, but I love a bit of Joseph fun too! There are also foods and music I don't like - I have no interest in going go to a pop concert, for instance - but to me, the snobbery level would be sneering at those things I don't like and those who like them, rather than simply saying I don't like them.
I suppose with church, I've found throughout my life that I don't seem to be the majority in what I like, and I generally don't fit in. So I am used to new church initiatives being something I probably wouldn't like, and I don't see that as automatically inherently bad. But to me, the more a church allows for and embraces diversity, the better. And to me, that is also about making individuals feel heard, feel valued, as part of the body of Christ. To me, we worship Christ by how we treat each other, as we are part of Christ. In the same way that some nuns bow whenever they pass another nun in the corridor, because each nun is Christ, Christ being in us and us in him.
Indeed - though I'd draw a distinction between individual churches that do what they want while theoretically/occasionally being hit by the centre with 'not in the authorised liturgies - desist', and church central then saying 'here're some things not in the authorised liturgies, why not give them a go?!'
Cakeism. Or more accurately for the CofE, fudge.
I claim no expertise on the New Testament churches - but I think that their services bore little resemblance to Eucharist at St Agatha's, Family Worship at Anytown Baptist, or even Divine Liturgy at St Nikolaos. Although I'd be extremely surprised to discover that the early churches did "crafting", it could be that their worship style was closer to "Messy Church" than some advocates of "Proper Church" might be comfortable with.
What is more worship is not confined to the authorised. There may be some home groups somewhere in the Church of England that end their meeting with Evening Prayer according the BCP but I suspect that the majority of occassions where they exist the form of worship is an informal of no particular rite maybe with some flavour of the tradition e.g. in Anglo Catholic you might get a Hail Mary included. Worship exists in all traditions in a much broader and richer former than the authorised worship services. Just look at the variety of Marian devotion that exists within Roman Catholicism for starters. If a demonination is wise it seeks to own these as part of its being the Church.
Seriously, though, I once found myself in a vociferous minority at an ecumenical conference when I objected to the idea of non-eucharistic services being the norm in some Fresh Expressions settings within Anglicanism.
Even some of the Orthodox participants didn't have any issue with it. Perhaps because they hadn't been subjected to action-songs and poster paint.
We have our own 'actions' of course.
Proper ones ... 😉
I am impressed though by those like @Cathscats and @Spike who appear to have made these things work. Alas, I don't think @betjemaniac is alone in his experience of these things.
I know of a semi-rural church where the incumbent had been a street-entertainer before ordination. He entranced the kids in the village primary school with his conjuring tricks and legerdemain and lo and behold many of them came to church bringing their parents with them.
For a time the 'Family Services' were packed. Then he moved away. Numbers reverted pretty much to how they'd been before.
Ok, so I understand that 'Messy Church' and its equivalents are supposed to be 'church' in and of themselves and not a 'gateway' into more traditional services.
But from what I've seen everyone tends to clear off as soon as the kids get too old for poster paints and action-songs.
But then you are talking to a curmudgeonly old git who has a lot of sympathy with the Anglican Archdeacon who said that 'Fresh Expressions' sounds like a new brand of cat litter tray.
I'll get me coat ...
Ok, but if by the 'Great Division' you mean the 'Great Schism' of 1054AD (rather than those 500 years earlier), then I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with action-songs and poster paint.
I don't think those were mentioned in Luther's 95 Theses either.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
If I remember rightly, most of those denominational divisions arose over disputes about church government or knotty theological issues rather than particular worship styles and preferences.
It's not as if there was a great deal of difference in worship style, for want of a better phrase, between East and West in the 11th century.
'If anyone uses puppets or poster paint, let them be anathema.'
Same for me in the UK in the 1950s and 60s! Mind you, it was a very low church parish.
There is a certain irony in the fact that Cranmer, and other reformers, intended the Eucharist to be the principal service on the Lord's Day, which didn't really happen in this country until the 19thC and early 20thC revivals, Parish Communion movement etc..
I don't go to it mostly because I felt that I had reached my limit as a volunteer for church activities, and didn't want to find myself volunteering for anything else.
Yes, I think for many Low CofE churches Mattins was the main thing until the early 60s when Parish Communion came in.
I've suggested it in the past for Our Place, but, realistically, we simply don't have the volunteers required. Mind you, if parents etc. were also themselves involved, staffing might be easier, but it's rather a chicken-and-egg situation, given that we don't have the families in the first place!
I did this on Trinity Sunday, this year. Gave a two part sermon. Since it is very hard to explain the Trinity, I used a short video from the Bible Project which traced the concept of Trinity through the OT took about six minutes. Then I gave a short homily on the call of Wisdom which was the first lesson. Dealing with the Call of Wisdom, I also gave a handout showing the enticement of Folly which is in the previous chapter of Proverbs, showing them both side by side.
In the past, I have used dramatic readings, taking on a Biblical character, ha)ving quick Bible studies.
I find reasons why pastors seldom do these things are 1) it is not in their skill set, and 2) congregations resist the use of other media forms.
In my thesaurus, Division and Schism are synonymous. The disunity happened because of a mix of political, cultural and theological disagreements. As a result, the Divine Service of the Eastern church than the basic Mass of the Western Church are quite different.
One of the key issues of the Lutheran part of the Reformation was the restoring of the worship style of the Mass, doing away with elements that, in the opinion of Lutherans at the time detracted from the Gospel. (e.g. praying to the saints or the Virgin). That, and the increased use of hymnology.
Calvin wanted to strip down worship even more. changing even the order of worship. Still is followed by many Reformed churches.
I stand by what I said.
And if puppets and poster paints get the Gospel across, so be it. BTW puppets were even in use by the church before the Reformation.
Withdrawn
But not denominations. The fluidity of sects is quite remarkable. I think I have told on these boards that in 1972 there was at least one congregation which had to write to the Congregational Church of England and Wales and explain that it could not join the URC, not because the vote was against it, but because it was Baptist by its deeds and had to do some legal work first. Presbyterianism, the only form church ecclesiology among Reformation Non-Conformists that naturally led to denominational structure had its wiped out in the early eighteenth century with the rise of Unitarianism. The Presbyterian Church of England was around 80% plants by 19th Century Scots Immigrants with most of the exceptions being in Northumbria and Cumbria.
These were not LEPS (Local Ecumenical Projects) but arose out of the situation after the act of toleration in the 17th century where often there were not enough Nonconformist of a single persuasion to form a grouping of a specific sect so sects combined together to form a congregation.
No, the Western and Eastern liturgies didn't diverge substantially until some time after the Schism. So no, I don't accept what you said and like @Nick Tamen I issue a similar challenge to your misrepresentation of Calvin's position.
What you have said though, quite rightly, is that the disunity happened because of 'a mix of political, cultural and theological disagreements.'
That's very different to matters of worship style and preference.
@Baptist Trainfan - I agree with @Jengie Jon. 17th century Dissenting sects weren't operating under the same assumptions as 19th century denominationalism, although I'll grant that the seeds of that were sown in the two centuries beforehand.
That may sound like a pedantic point and a matter of semantics but I think it's true to say that 'denominationalism' as we understand it today largely comes from 19th century rivalries and emphases.
It's certainly the case, though, that a thoroughly eirenic figure like Richard Baxter regarded the RCs, the 'Greeks' and 'Ethiopians' as variations on a theme alongside the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Anabaptists and other Dissenting groups. But he wouldn't have seen them as denominations in the way that we do today.
Anyhow, as for whether the Gospel can be conveyed through puppets and poster-paint, yes, of course it can. That's not the issue. I know all our structures and organisations are provisional, at least in their temporal form, but I do wonder how sustainable longer-term initiatives like Messy Church are.
From my own observations I can't say I've seen them lead people into the 'regular' services of whichever church hosts them. Perhaps that's not the point.
Perhaps I'm missing something.
This reminds me of Contemporary Christian Worship--a big hit in the 70s through 90s. Now, not so much. Except in Finland, where heavy rock seems to be the thing in worship there.
For me, the church is not some static entity but a living body as long as the Word is preached, and the Sacraments are used, the form is of little consequence.
I am thinking of the Rock and Roll Services of the Baby Boom Generation. We are dying out, you know. You seldom hear They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love anymore these days.
Liturgists much prefer a more balanced approach, now.
Every year thousands of new hymns are boing published. Few will make a hymnal. Seems like it was not just a few years ago, we had a gripe session of the likes of Martin Haugen. There are much newer writers out there now.
I never heard it in a Rock and Roll style.
Okay, Folk Rock.
Well the churches I'm thinking of generally don't have liturgists. What is Hillsong's music or Bethel's music if not CCW?
It was new to me a couple of years ago.
There were, of course, 'Connexions' within early Methodist circles. 'The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion' was a prime example.
I s'pose I'd think of Baptist and other 'associations' back then as being proto denominational but I may be stretching a point too far.
@Gramps49 - Heck, I'm Orthodox and I don't see the Church as being static either - even though we Orthies fondly imagine that we've not undergone any change or development.
Remember what the late Jaroslav Pelikan, a convert from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy said, 'Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.'
I'm not sure your folk rock / rock and roll worship thing holds in terms of something to bolster your point.
Those people I know who were into CCM and worship songs and choruses back in the '80s are either still into that now or have else moved onto other things such as contemplative prayer or more liturgical or sacramental forms of worship (as I have).
Would a 5 year old kid playing with poster paint in Messy Church this week still be doing that in 15 or 20 years time?
People keep saying that Messy Church isn't an entry-level introduction to traditional services or even contemporary ones.
What @Spike and @Cathscats tell us in impressive and I have no reason to doubt what they say.
But I still don't get it.
Most of the people involved in Messy Church in the places I know drop out when they get too old for action-songs and poster paint.
It might be fun while it lasts but where does it take them?
Equally, of course, the historic Churches have tended to haemorrhage youngsters when they reach their teens.
I have no idea how to resolve that.
I suspect Messy Church probably makes things even worse; because it's deliberately doing the kinds of things that are classed as 'childish' and thus exactly the sort of thing teenagers are desperate to distance themselves from.
Teenagers are another matter altogether, I agree! We have a few at Our Place (not necessarily every Sunday), and two of them seem happy to simply be part of the congregation. Two others are happy to dress up as servers on High Days and Holy Days, and one of them is proving to be a competent thurifer.
How much is it a ‘problem’ though? Historically children went to church in much larger numbers, mostly fell away in their teens, and then some came back at some point later.
The biggest problem now is IMO that we’ve got generations that never went at all so can’t ’come back’ later on.
My (very young) children go to church with me. If they fall away when they’re 13, and never come back then at least they’ll know what they’re not going to.
They don't go onto any form of involvement with the 'main' congregation.
They do not 'Pass Go'. They do not collect their '£200.'
I'm told that this isn't the point of it. That Messy Church is church in and of itself.
If so, and I have a lot of sympathy with what @chrisstiles has just contributed, then are we expecting people to remain in a constant state of puerility?
My kids dropped out of church involvement during their teens. They hated the hard-sell of the rah-rah-rah Christian youth camps they attended.
They were a lot more street-wise than I was at their age.
Like @Baptist Trainfan I have no idea what the answer is here.
We sang a dirge and they did not mourn. We played a pipe and they did not dance.
The "Reformed" model of worship naturally has its faults, notably a lack of "numinosity" and an over-emphasis on rationality. But if it is done well it does ask for real intellectual engagement with Scripture and Christian teaching.
Since the subject's come up--
My congregation(s) actually found an answer to the "young people drop out right after confirmation" (age 13 or so) thing. What we discovered was that young people stay, if you deliberately involve them in adult responsibilities and service starting a year or two before standard drop-out age. And I do mean adult--we started apprenticing our young people to the treasurer, the trustees (who run the building, boiler, etc.), the secretary (computer work etc.) and the musicians. Our goal was that they would learn by doing from the very beginning--because we had a lot of elders desperate to retire, and we needed to slot people into those empty roles. You will probably not be nearly as desperate as we were, but I have to say, the obvious need we had for these young people's service made it very very clear to them that none of this was "make work"--we really needed them, if they weren't there or didn't do something it was going to hurt everybody, and their service was truly appreciated.
As you can see, this is the total opposite of what most congregations I know do with their young people. They tend to indulge them with pizza parties and skating, or the occasional deliberately "made for youth" service projects like short term mission trips or running a youth service once a year. But in my opinion that sort of thing is infantilizing--it suggests that we can't trust them with the real work. I'm not surprised they leave!
The other thing involving them in real work does is to create completely natural situations where they get to know other adults and really, people of all ages, and develop friendships with them. That also ties them more firmly into the congregation.
Anyway, I'm throwing this out here for anyone it might be useful to. We've tested it in two locations so far, with both Vietnamese and mainline American culture congregations. So far it really works. Some of those kids have gone on into ministry or into public service (such as with the USAID stuff that Trump is now cutting, drat).
And yes, I do think @Baptist Trainfan that the rest of us could certainly take a leaf out of the Reformed/reformed book when it comes to preaching and teaching.
I won't name names, but some of you will know who I mean, but I know an Orthodox priest who is struggling to keep up with the number of catechumens in his parish. He is somewhat put out that 'mono-ethnic' Orthodox parishes in his city are sending people his way rather than catechising them themselves.
Food for thought. Our Place is likely to be in interregnum from early 2026, and that may be the occasion for a general reboot...
This i completely sympathize with, as it has been the custom of the local (later-planted) Vietnamese churches of all denominations in town to wait until we convert and catechize people, and THEN to employ various tactics to get them to attend their own churches… i mean, fine, be that way, we aren’t going to run out of members, but surely there are enough non-believers out there that you could lend a hand from the beginning instead of expecting us to do everything!!! Grrrrrrrr
There have been notable exceptions of course.
What I'm finding, as an aside, is that as well as enquirers from other Christian traditions we are getting previously unchurched people and also nominally or culturally Orthodox who have developed an interest in their latent faith since migrating to this country.
Having such a mixed group is certainly a challenge in catechetical terms but it is a nettle we need to grasp.
Palming responsibility onto a parish that is a bit further down that particular road isn't the right way to go about this.
What do we want?
More catechesis!
When do we want it?
Now!
That is the situation in our church. We have people from various Eastern European countries who were baptised as infants and grew up within the church in Communist times, but received no instruction in the faith. They have been pleased to join our catechesis group alongside those seeking entry into our church as well as those recently received and who wish to consolidate and extend their knowledge.
Fixed coding - Nenya, Ecclesiantics Host
I suppose I'm unsympathetic. But I was doing this stuff at age eighteen for want of any other English-speaker to cope with the up and coming generations.