My congregation has a pretty significant contingent of youth too. We also involve them in the life of the congregation. We actually find many of the youth invite their friends to come with them. We certainly work to welcome them too.
I agree with LambChopped, the way to keep church youth is for them to be part of the church family.
Something like what @Lamb Chopped and @Heavenlyannie have said is the only reason I'm still vaguely involved with churches. I went to the one down the road from my parents' home when I was younger. I got to be about 10 or 11, was getting very bored as we were repeating stuff in Sunday School, so simply stopped going.
A month or so later I started learning to ring bells at the church just over a mile away. Once I was competent, I started ringing for weddings and Sunday mornings. I still ring; I still ring regularly at that church (and another); I still don't stay for the service.
A month or so later I started learning to ring bells at the church just over a mile away. Once I was competent, I started ringing for weddings and Sunday mornings. I still ring; I still ring regularly at that church (and another); I still don't stay for the service.
We think of it as ringing God's doorbell, then running away.
I think what @Lamb Chopped said is important.
Whilst Messy Church may indeed be Church in a spiritual sense for some people for the time they attend, if that is all it is, it is short-lived. An off-shoot, an outreach of the ( legal) body that set it up.
Let’s be honest, without new people and especially younger people signing up to the local church, supporting it financially and taking on responsibilities, many local churches will close. With the exception of our 24 year old director of music, all of the responsibilities at my church are undertaken by people well over the age of 70.
Old people having responsibilities in churches is one problem.
Our problem is that, despite having younger people and plenty of them, the oldies cling on to their roles and don't even invite younger folks in with a view to handing on eventually.
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.
You'd have thought so, but sadly it doesn't appear to be the case in the settings I have in mind.
I could quibble about conversion being a process rather than a one-off 'event' but I take your point.
Surely you could; but the frustration remains. Why cream off our sheep just at the point where they start to get useful to the church in service, leadership, etc.? Well, I guess I've answered my own question...
Grrrrrr. But they aren't going to stop, so we just get on with the next person or family God tosses in our direction.
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.
Not just 'low' churches. The place where I served my title as curate had always been 'Prayer Book Catholic', but until the early 60s alternated Mattins with Sung Eucharist as the main service. There was always an early Eucharist of course but only attended by a minority.
...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?
Sorry to go back here to different texts but YouTube recommended me a video for some reason where a priest was interviewed whose parish was using the 1549 Prayer Book. Is this authorised, i.e. is any Prayer Book permitted or have some "revisions" (sorry for that clunky term) rendered previous versions not allowed?
...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?
Sorry to go back here to different texts but YouTube recommended me a video for some reason where a priest was interviewed whose parish was using the 1549 Prayer Book. Is this authorised, i.e. is any Prayer Book permitted or have some "revisions" (sorry for that clunky term) rendered previous versions not allowed?
In the Church of England, only the 1622 BCP and Common Worship are authorised for worship.
...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?
Sorry to go back here to different texts but YouTube recommended me a video for some reason where a priest was interviewed whose parish was using the 1549 Prayer Book. Is this authorised, i.e. is any Prayer Book permitted or have some "revisions" (sorry for that clunky term) rendered previous versions not allowed?
In the Church of England, only the 1622 BCP and Common Worship are authorised for worship.
1662 rather than 1622 - though I’m sure that’s a typo.
...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?
Sorry to go back here to different texts but YouTube recommended me a video for some reason where a priest was interviewed whose parish was using the 1549 Prayer Book. Is this authorised, i.e. is any Prayer Book permitted or have some "revisions" (sorry for that clunky term) rendered previous versions not allowed?
Not just previous ‘revisions’ - there’s a BCP 1928 that never got through Parliament so technically isn’t allowed to be used (even though a lot of it has turned up in various ways in things that *have been* allowed at various subsequent times, IIRC Alternative Services Series One was basically 1928.
To develop Pomona’s point, the legal services for the CofE are Common Worship or BCP 1662 *except* that the former incorporates a lot of ASS1 as an option - it does come out a lot at weddings (including my own). Why, I don’t really know, unless it’s just so that you can have something in ‘traditional’ language where the bride doesn’t have to obey.
...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?
Sorry to go back here to different texts but YouTube recommended me a video for some reason where a priest was interviewed whose parish was using the 1549 Prayer Book. Is this authorised, i.e. is any Prayer Book permitted or have some "revisions" (sorry for that clunky term) rendered previous versions not allowed?
In the Church of England, only the 1622 BCP and Common Worship are authorised for worship.
True, but plenty of places ignore that. I once heard a story about a new incumbent who was about to be inducted. Before the service, he read the declaration in front of the bishop (as they always do) and after the bit about only using “forms authorised by canon” he muttered under his breath “more or less”.
I've attended Anglican services where only the opening prayer and the closing benediction are recognisably Anglican in any way, shape or form.
Trendy vicars try to make their services as 'un-Anglican' as possible.
HTB-look-alikes, I'm looking at you.
I attended one recently where they didn't even have any Bible readings and some kind of plug/presentation about one of their albeit very worthy social outreach programmes instead of a sermon.
A few unconnected worship songs that led nowhere and that was it.
I've attended Anglican services where only the opening prayer and the closing benediction are recognisably Anglican in any way, shape or form.
Trendy vicars try to make their services as 'un-Anglican' as possible.
HTB-look-alikes, I'm looking at you.
I attended one recently where they didn't even have any Bible readings and some kind of plug/presentation about one of their albeit very worthy social outreach programmes instead of a sermon.
A few unconnected worship songs that led nowhere and that was it.
Was outrage!
I'm conscious of the temptation to rant, and even express fatwas, about other traditions that seem alien. But I think it's OK to ask questions. So I would like to ask the leaders/ ministers in charge of such a service how they believed it fell within the definitions of an authorised Anglican act of worship. Also to ask the congregation members what they thought about it.
The traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox/Roman Catholic liturgy, by contrast, will have several scripture readings as well as canticles and psalms. In addition, the language of the rest of the liturgy will often include allusions to or direct quotes from biblical texts. The supposedly 'bible-believing' groups, not so much. I've never heard a convincing explanation of the reason.
I've attended Anglican services where only the opening prayer and the closing benediction are recognisably Anglican in any way, shape or form.
Trendy vicars try to make their services as 'un-Anglican' as possible.
HTB-look-alikes, I'm looking at you.
I attended one recently where they didn't even have any Bible readings and some kind of plug/presentation about one of their albeit very worthy social outreach programmes instead of a sermon.
A few unconnected worship songs that led nowhere and that was it.
Was outrage!
I'm conscious of the temptation to rant, and even express fatwas, about other traditions that seem alien. But I think it's OK to ask questions. So I would like to ask the leaders/ ministers in charge of such a service how they believed it fell within the definitions of an authorised Anglican act of worship. Also to ask the congregation members what they thought about it.
The traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox/Roman Catholic liturgy, by contrast, will have several scripture readings as well as canticles and psalms. In addition, the language of the rest of the liturgy will often include allusions to or direct quotes from biblical texts. The supposedly 'bible-believing' groups, not so much. I've never heard a convincing explanation of the reason.
I refer (angrily from inside that tradition) to that type of thing as "bible free Sunday "
Canon Law is quite generous in the flexibility it allows. The following is from Canon B.5
2. The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocations, archbishops, or Ordinary under Canon B 4 use forms of service considered suitable by him for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said forms of service.
3. All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
I've attended Anglican services where only the opening prayer and the closing benediction are recognisably Anglican in any way, shape or form.
Trendy vicars try to make their services as 'un-Anglican' as possible.
HTB-look-alikes, I'm looking at you.
I attended one recently where they didn't even have any Bible readings and some kind of plug/presentation about one of their albeit very worthy social outreach programmes instead of a sermon.
A few unconnected worship songs that led nowhere and that was it.
Was outrage!
I'm conscious of the temptation to rant, and even express fatwas, about other traditions that seem alien. But I think it's OK to ask questions. So I would like to ask the leaders/ ministers in charge of such a service how they believed it fell within the definitions of an authorised Anglican act of worship. Also to ask the congregation members what they thought about it.
The traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox/Roman Catholic liturgy, by contrast, will have several scripture readings as well as canticles and psalms. In addition, the language of the rest of the liturgy will often include allusions to or direct quotes from biblical texts. The supposedly 'bible-believing' groups, not so much. I've never heard a convincing explanation of the reason.
I would say that there seems to be a need at a congregational or party level for a fixed level of conservatism.
If the theology is liberalised, that seems to be balanced by a certain rigidity of liturgical practice. Meanwhile, when the theology remains solidly conservative, this provides latitude for more liberalisation in service structure and content. This may explain why Charismatics, in the main, ended up as a subset of Evangelicals, and Evangelicals took on Charismatic worship material quite readily. Or to put it another way, why worship songs performed by worship bands are overwhelmingly conservative in theology and found in services bearing only a passing resemblance to anything in the Prayer Book or Common Worship - a pattern seen both within and without the CofE.
Personally I'm long since past thinking it matters much. I'm mostly bothered by (a) damaging* theology and (b) what I know I can or can't cope with**.
*subjective I know.
**only way I can cope with worship band style stuff in any quantity now is from behind a musical instrument where I feel like an imposter but can direct my attention into musicality.
I've attended Anglican services where only the opening prayer and the closing benediction are recognisably Anglican in any way, shape or form.
Trendy vicars try to make their services as 'un-Anglican' as possible.
HTB-look-alikes, I'm looking at you.
I attended one recently where they didn't even have any Bible readings and some kind of plug/presentation about one of their albeit very worthy social outreach programmes instead of a sermon.
A few unconnected worship songs that led nowhere and that was it.
Was outrage!
I'm conscious of the temptation to rant, and even express fatwas, about other traditions that seem alien. But I think it's OK to ask questions. So I would like to ask the leaders/ ministers in charge of such a service how they believed it fell within the definitions of an authorised Anglican act of worship. Also to ask the congregation members what they thought about it.
The traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox/Roman Catholic liturgy, by contrast, will have several scripture readings as well as canticles and psalms. In addition, the language of the rest of the liturgy will often include allusions to or direct quotes from biblical texts. The supposedly 'bible-believing' groups, not so much. I've never heard a convincing explanation of the reason.
I would say that there seems to be a need at a congregational or party level for a fixed level of conservatism.
If the theology is liberalised, that seems to be balanced by a certain rigidity of liturgical practice. Meanwhile, when the theology remains solidly conservative, this provides latitude for more liberalisation in service structure and content. This may explain why Charismatics, in the main, ended up as a subset of Evangelicals, and Evangelicals took on Charismatic worship material quite readily. Or to put it another way, why worship songs performed by worship bands are overwhelmingly conservative in theology and found in services bearing only a passing resemblance to anything in the Prayer Book or Common Worship - a pattern seen both within and without the CofE.
Personally I'm long since past thinking it matters much. I'm mostly bothered by (a) damaging* theology and (b) what I know I can or can't cope with**.
*subjective I know.
**only way I can cope with worship band style stuff in any quantity now is from behind a musical instrument where I feel like an imposter but can direct my attention into musicality.
I’d not thought about it like that - fixed level of conservatism - but I think it holds for all churches even if only at the level of ‘regular congregation need to know what they’re going to get’ (even where what they’re going to get is free-form, extempore and tongues -IYSWIM)
I don’t really mind what other churches/Churches get up to, but I know what I want!*
*ideally BCP and the New English Hymnal (or Hymns A&M as a close second). Maybe an Angelus. Confession on tap. Mattins. Oxford MA hood.
Canon Law is quite generous in the flexibility it allows. The following is from Canon B.5
2. The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocations, archbishops, or Ordinary under Canon B 4 use forms of service considered suitable by him for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said forms of service.
3. All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
Fair enough. Not my preference but I will go along with it. EXCEPT THAT I'm pretty sure the rules are not so flexible as to dispense with the requirement for reading scripture. And Canon Law certainly says that the Eucharist should (if not, for exceptional reasons, must) be celebrated in every parish every Sunday.
Canon Law is quite generous in the flexibility it allows. The following is from Canon B.5
2. The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocations, archbishops, or Ordinary under Canon B 4 use forms of service considered suitable by him for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said forms of service.
3. All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.
Fair enough. Not my preference but I will go along with it. EXCEPT THAT I'm pretty sure the rules are not so flexible as to dispense with the requirement for reading scripture.
Perhaps I shouldn’t weigh in, as the services of the Church of England are neither my bailiwick nor part of my diet. But here I go.
The canon cited and quoted says:
The minister having the cure of souls may on occasions for which no provision is made in The Book of Common Prayer or by the General Synod under Canon B 2 or by the Convocations, archbishops, or Ordinary under Canon B 4 use forms of service considered suitable by him for those occasions and may permit another minister to use the said forms of service
(Italics added.)
I will admit that the lawyer in me is stumbling over this a bit. Is the canon really so flexible that the main service(s) on a Sunday can be considered “occasions for which no provision is made” in the authorized liturgies of the Church of England?
The capture of most of the CofE hierarchy by evangelicals and the unwillingness of the rest to take to task any parish that is apparently "successful". You don't need to be a Jesuit canon lawyer to justify yourself when there's never going to be a trial.
The capture of most of the CofE hierarchy by evangelicals and the unwillingness of the rest to take to task any parish that is apparently "successful". You don't need to be a Jesuit canon lawyer to justify yourself when there's never going to be a trial.
Thanks. Yes, I wondered if it was less that the flexibility is actually provided for by the canon and more that there’s little if any will to challenge actual practice.
Back to 1549 (so to speak), and I find that All Saints, Northampton, advertises its 1230pm Mass on Wednesdays as following the 1549 service.
There are a number of YouTube videos from three years ago showing this service, with priest, server, and perhaps one or two others present. No Clerkes, and no synging, alas, so it's a bit of a priestly monologue. The 1552/1559/1662 revisions were too...
Back to 1549 (so to speak), and I find that All Saints, Northampton, advertises its 1230pm Mass on Wednesdays as following the 1549 service.
There are a number of YouTube videos from three years ago showing this service, with priest, server, and perhaps one or two others present. No Clerkes, and no synging, alas, so it's a bit of a priestly monologue. The 1552/1559/1662 revisions were too...
Back to 1549 (so to speak), and I find that All Saints, Northampton, advertises its 1230pm Mass on Wednesdays as following the 1549 service.
There are a number of YouTube videos from three years ago showing this service, with priest, server, and perhaps one or two others present. No Clerkes, and no synging, alas, so it's a bit of a priestly monologue. The 1552/1559/1662 revisions were too...
I think there is a very great institutional reluctance to enforce Canon Law over worship practices. This favours both the informal and transAlpine tendencies in the Church of England. It is not a new situation.
Complaining about it to the Bishop would feel a bit like going to the teacher saying "Miss! Miss! Johnny's not done his top button up Miss! And he was eating sweets in Mr Jones' maths lesson!"
Indeed. Plus, complaining to the Bishop is unlikely to achieve anything anyway.
I'm not really that worried what various churches get up to but it was a surprise to find no scripture readings in an ostensibly 'Bible-believing' church.
I think @KarlLB is onto something with his levels of conservatism.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox tend to be rather theologically conversative and very conservative liturgically.
So a certain rigidity in liturgical structure doesn't necessarily imply liberalism in theology. The same applies to certain strands of Anglo-Catholicism and particular RC parishes.
I'm sure the same applies to Lutheran churches and some sections of the Reformed side of things.
Surely you could; but the frustration remains. Why cream off our sheep just at the point where they start to get useful to the church in service, leadership, etc.? Well, I guess I've answered my own question...
It could also be the case that the pre-sheep are divinely directed you way because there is no other option but they actually constitute a mix of personalities who would be happier in different styles of churches.
I think there is a very great institutional reluctance to enforce Canon Law over worship practices. This favours both the informal and transAlpine tendencies in the Church of England. It is not a new situation.
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!
I feel a mix is what is called for; I don't think 'youth programmes' are particularly great, but on the other hand teens mature at different rates and not everyone is up for the pressure of the kind of apprenticeship you laid out. Fundamentally the things that work well seem to have a combination of connection with the rest of the church, closer connections to older mentors of some kind and some kind of role that has actual significance rather than being a pre-adult creche, and all these things are achievable within the scope of traditional youth work or none.
I think there is a very great institutional reluctance to enforce Canon Law over worship practices. This favours both the informal and transAlpine tendencies in the Church of England. It is not a new situation.
"TransAlpine"?
See also: ultra montane. In this context those Anglo-Catholics who look beyond the Alps, specifically to Rome, for their liturgy.
Surely you could; but the frustration remains. Why cream off our sheep just at the point where they start to get useful to the church in service, leadership, etc.? Well, I guess I've answered my own question...
It could also be the case that the pre-sheep are divinely directed you way because there is no other option but they actually constitute a mix of personalities who would be happier in different styles of churches.
@Lamb Chopped can answer for herself of course and better than I can on her behalf. She will correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that this isn't an issue of 'different styles of churches' but one where Vietnamese enquirers/converts/believers are 'sent' to Lamb Chopped's church for catechesis or instruction - on loan as it were.
There is then the expectation that they will return to the church which 'sent' or 'loaned' them once Lamb Chopped, her husband and their regular congregation have done their 'job' - one which the 'sending' churches are either incapable or too lazy to do themselves.
The Orthodox instance I cited was not dissimilar although my own solution - FWIW - would be different to that of the priest I know who is frustrated by this.
But then, I'm not a priest or a church leader ...
It is, of course, not always easy to discern whether any of these things are divinely orchestrated in order for some mysterious purpose to be worked out.
Whether this is the case or not it must certainly be very frustrating for those on the receiving end.
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!
I feel a mix is what is called for; I don't think 'youth programmes' are particularly great, . . .
They can be. I’ve known many good youth programs. But the good ones are almost always part of a larger picture of meaningful involvement in the life of a congregation.
Complaining about it to the Bishop would feel a bit like going to the teacher saying "Miss! Miss! Johnny's not done his top button up Miss! And he was eating sweets in Mr Jones' maths lesson!"
Well yes! But in most schools the Head would ensure that Miss checked that her pupils were observing the dress code. And while bishops have many other more important, matters to deal with, they should surely be ensuring that the churches in their jurisdiction were recognisably what they claim to be.
If I go to an Indian restaurant I expect to be offered Indian food. That restaurant might well cater for other tastes by offering burgers and chips (sorry, fries) in addition but its core menu would reflect its origins. If it stopped serving recognisably Indian dishes altogether it should (and no doubt would) rebrand as something else.
A hundred years ago the Book of Common Prayer defined the menu in Church of England churches. By that stage, other tastes were beginning to be catered for in small ways. Now it's become much more à la carte but there still is a menu. If you go to the C of E you should expect to find the old favourites still on the menu, whatever else might be included.
I think there is a very great institutional reluctance to enforce Canon Law over worship practices. This favours both the informal and transAlpine tendencies in the Church of England. It is not a new situation.
"TransAlpine"?
See also: ultra montane. In this context those Anglo-Catholics who look beyond the Alps, specifically to Rome, for their liturgy.
Yes. Ultramontane was the term my brain was feebly groping for.
Complaining about it to the Bishop would feel a bit like going to the teacher saying "Miss! Miss! Johnny's not done his top button up Miss! And he was eating sweets in Mr Jones' maths lesson!"
Well yes! But in most schools the Head would ensure that Miss checked that her pupils were observing the dress code. And while bishops have many other more important, matters to deal with, they should surely be ensuring that the churches in their jurisdiction were recognisably what they claim to be.
If I go to an Indian restaurant I expect to be offered Indian food. That restaurant might well cater for other tastes by offering burgers and chips (sorry, fries) in addition but its core menu would reflect its origins. If it stopped serving recognisably Indian dishes altogether it should (and no doubt would) rebrand as something else.
A hundred years ago the Book of Common Prayer defined the menu in Church of England churches. By that stage, other tastes were beginning to be catered for in small ways. Now it's become much more à la carte but there still is a menu. If you go to the C of E you should expect to find the old favourites still on the menu, whatever else might be included.
Yes. I notice that the traditional British chippie offers far more than fish and chips these days - those hideous apologies for sausages for instance and 'nuggets' even.
But you still get cod and chips.
To be fair, even the trendiest of Anglican outfits still make a nod to tradition in some form or other, but not having a single Bible reading is a new one on me.
I'm told by lovely bloke from that end of the spectrum that this is unusual.
Surely you could; but the frustration remains. Why cream off our sheep just at the point where they start to get useful to the church in service, leadership, etc.? Well, I guess I've answered my own question...
It could also be the case that the pre-sheep are divinely directed you way because there is no other option but they actually constitute a mix of personalities who would be happier in different styles of churches.
@Lamb Chopped can answer for herself of course and better than I can on her behalf. She will correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that this isn't an issue of 'different styles of churches' but one where Vietnamese enquirers/converts/believers are 'sent' to Lamb Chopped's church for catechesis or instruction - on loan as it were.
There is then the expectation that they will return to the church which 'sent' or 'loaned' them once Lamb Chopped, her husband and their regular congregation have done their 'job' - one which the 'sending' churches are either incapable or too lazy to do themselves.
The Orthodox instance I cited was not dissimilar although my own solution - FWIW - would be different to that of the priest I know who is frustrated by this.
But then, I'm not a priest or a church leader ...
It is, of course, not always easy to discern whether any of these things are divinely orchestrated in order for some mysterious purpose to be worked out.
Whether this is the case or not it must certainly be very frustrating for those on the receiving end.
I should have been clearer.
We planted the first Vietnamese Christian church in our city of any sort, as far as I know. There was a Bible study of sorts meeting way out in the suburbs, with perhaps a dozen Vietnamese who were well off by community standards and had some English--but as far as I'm aware they never evangelized at all--and we knew them pretty well, we worked with them for some years.
There was also a Vietnamese Jesuit in the city, but I'm not aware of him gathering anybody together. It was his friend my professor who introduced us to the need in the city--we had previously been planning to spend the next four or so years in grad school, tending to our own personal needs and preparing for the future. I had in fact made my husband promise NOT to start a church while we were still in school, because I had seen my inlaws doing it--and the pastor's home in this context is always the community center, open to everybody at all hours of the night and day, and housing people who need it. I knew we'd come to it, I just hoped for a couple of years to be ... well, married, first. Because I was only 22, and wanted time to get used to my new life.
Ha. If I had had sense, I should have gotten God to promise me that (yeah, right!) Because he apparently heard me, laughed, and promptly arranged to get my own professor to dump the news on us about the huge need. St. Louis is a major resettlement city for new immigrants and refugees, they have an agency called International Institute that has been here for what, maybe a hundred years? And so every time there's a new wave of refugees, St. Louis gets them (along with New York, Los Angeles, and a few others)
But we didn't know that, when we signed up for grad school in that city. And when Father Ong invited us to Jesuit Hall for dinner, he dumped the news on us that there were what, seven to ten thousand Vietnamese refugees in the city, almost all of them brand new and with no English at all, with almost no support services (I.Institute was overwhelmed as usual), and with no interpreters to speak of, either. I mean, pregnant women were using their toddlers to interpret for the OB/GYN in the hospital, it was that bad. There were no telephone interpretation services, either. And everybody's lives going to hell in a handbasket as a result...
Well, you hear that and what you are going to do? When the pair of you speak both languages (me like a child, but still, better than nothing). It's sort of like being the Carpathia trying to fish the Titanic survivors out of the water. You yell "All hands on deck!" and go for it.
...
Now this naturally results in a helluva lot of people asking you why you're doing what you do. To which we say, "Jesus sent us," and carry on. Some of them will ask you who this Jesus is, and well, that results in a church being born. Others will just get what they need and keep going, and we're good with that, too.
But the ones who stick--the ones who ask us about Jesus--
Well, you have to find a place for them to meet, and get hold of some Bibles (that would be our living room, for a start), and then begin developing teaching materials, because there's next to nothing out there, you can't order stuff, nobody's even written it. So it falls on you. And that means catechesis--helping people understand their faith and mature in it. And it took us about three years before we had people asking for baptism, and then we had years and years of baptisms of all ages, and so forth, and meanwhile we were teaching about the Lord's Supper, and preparing the whole congregation for that... So you develop and use more materials. And we were just completely overwhelmed.
And other tiny churches began emerging, and we were glad to see that, because God knows, two people wasn't enough to handle anything. Except that we got frustrated when we realized that their main church growth strategy was to call up our people and offer them money, or food, or various inducements to leave our church and start attending theirs. I shit you not. We know, because quite a few of our people reported these conversations to us. Some asked, "Do you think I should take them up on it?" which was awkward. Of course we left that call to them... But in general, we just rolled our eyes and just let everybody do what they were going to do, because we were still in emergency mode, there was no shortage of non-believers and new believers coming to us through the emergency room doors, so to speak, it was kind of like a fire hose trained on us, and we didn't have TIME to get into a hissy fit spitting contest with the sheep stealers.
So it went like that for maybe 20 years, time enough for the children of that first generation of refugees to grow up, and to begin taking responsibility for translation/interpretation in their families. And was it Clinton? who more or less put a stop to accepting any more Vietnamese refugees into this country, except for family reunification, which meant we weren't meeting people at the airport every week anymore, and trying to get them settled, with beds and pots and things. And then we started having room to breathe, and could go back (mostly) to the more usual pastoral responsibilities, instead of spending every other night in the emergency room (A & E, for some of you). And of course, I'm disabled and getting more so, and Mr Lamb is nearly 80, so it's a good thing that the rush has tailed off.
But do you see why I was so freaking FRUSTRATED with the other churches? We needed them to be doing what we were doing, meeting human need; and sometimes they did! But every time they took the lazy way out and poached our people, as soon as they were mature enough to start being useful... Grrrrrr.
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!
I feel a mix is what is called for; I don't think 'youth programmes' are particularly great, . . .
They can be. I’ve known many good youth programs. But the good ones are almost always part of a larger picture of meaningful involvement in the life of a congregation.
Yeah. I was trying to find a vocabulary that adequately described the difference between the two - in particular the more disconnected ones I’d seen (often in large churches)
Indeed. Plus, complaining to the Bishop is unlikely to achieve anything anyway.
I'm not really that worried what various churches get up to but it was a surprise to find no scripture readings in an ostensibly 'Bible-believing' church.
I think @KarlLB is onto something with his levels of conservatism.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox tend to be rather theologically conversative and very conservative liturgically.
So a certain rigidity in liturgical structure doesn't necessarily imply liberalism in theology. The same applies to certain strands of Anglo-Catholicism and particular RC parishes.
I'm sure the same applies to Lutheran churches and some sections of the Reformed side of things.
Perhaps I should alter my "fixed" to "minimum". Holding to one of a conservative liturgical practice or theology may *allow* for liberalisation in the other, but doesn't force it. There are of course also the Fundies in Frocks Forward in Faith types who are conservative in both.
If anyone does know of a congregation liberal in both theology and liturgy I'd be fascinated.
Indeed. Plus, complaining to the Bishop is unlikely to achieve anything anyway.
I'm not really that worried what various churches get up to but it was a surprise to find no scripture readings in an ostensibly 'Bible-believing' church.
I think @KarlLB is onto something with his levels of conservatism.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox tend to be rather theologically conversative and very conservative liturgically.
So a certain rigidity in liturgical structure doesn't necessarily imply liberalism in theology. The same applies to certain strands of Anglo-Catholicism and particular RC parishes.
I'm sure the same applies to Lutheran churches and some sections of the Reformed side of things.
Perhaps I should alter my "fixed" to "minimum". Holding to one of a conservative liturgical practice or theology may *allow* for liberalisation in the other, but doesn't force it. There are of course also the Fundies in Frocks Forward in Faith types who are conservative in both.
If anyone does know of a congregation liberal in both theology and liturgy I'd be fascinated.
Would Quakers count? Also from what I know, that does describe Unitarians quite well.
I believe most MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination created to serve the LGBTQ+ community) congregations tend towards the liberal liturgy end of things.
I'm not sure I would describe Society (FinF) churches as uniformly conservative in terms of theology in general - not in the same way that their Evangelical equivalents are. I'd say that there's the same spectrum that you find in RC churches, in the UK at least. In my experience, the Orthodox in the UK tend to be significantly more rigidly conservative in terms of theology. I think there's often an assumption that Society churches are just con-evos in cassocks - this is very much NOT the case, having had extensive experience of both. Ocasionally you get the odd outlier that is like that but I'd say that they are very unusual, and tend to be errr more unusual socially too.
@betjemaniac I would welcome your thoughts here - would you say I'm right?
Also not a traditional congregation as such, but I'd say that Greenbelt would be an example of doubly-liberal in terms of theology and liturgy. I'd also put churches like All Hallows Leeds and groups like SCM (Student Christian Movement - not to be confused with Christian Unions) in that category.
I think like with liberal theology, a liberal attitude towards liturgy is very much a spectrum.
If anyone does know of a congregation liberal in both theology and liturgy I'd be fascinated.
I think you’d have to define exactly what is meant by “liberal in theology,” as I can see that phrase being used to mean a few different, and perhaps contrary, things.
But off the cuff, would the Iona Community and its Wild Goose Resources count as liberal theologically and liberal liturgically?
Comments
Something like what @Lamb Chopped and @Heavenlyannie have said is the only reason I'm still vaguely involved with churches. I went to the one down the road from my parents' home when I was younger. I got to be about 10 or 11, was getting very bored as we were repeating stuff in Sunday School, so simply stopped going.
A month or so later I started learning to ring bells at the church just over a mile away. Once I was competent, I started ringing for weddings and Sunday mornings. I still ring; I still ring regularly at that church (and another); I still don't stay for the service.
We think of it as ringing God's doorbell, then running away.
Whilst Messy Church may indeed be Church in a spiritual sense for some people for the time they attend, if that is all it is, it is short-lived. An off-shoot, an outreach of the ( legal) body that set it up.
Let’s be honest, without new people and especially younger people signing up to the local church, supporting it financially and taking on responsibilities, many local churches will close. With the exception of our 24 year old director of music, all of the responsibilities at my church are undertaken by people well over the age of 70.
Our problem is that, despite having younger people and plenty of them, the oldies cling on to their roles and don't even invite younger folks in with a view to handing on eventually.
You'd have thought so, but sadly it doesn't appear to be the case in the settings I have in mind.
I could quibble about conversion being a process rather than a one-off 'event' but I take your point.
Grrrrrr. But they aren't going to stop, so we just get on with the next person or family God tosses in our direction.
Not just 'low' churches. The place where I served my title as curate had always been 'Prayer Book Catholic', but until the early 60s alternated Mattins with Sung Eucharist as the main service. There was always an early Eucharist of course but only attended by a minority.
Sorry to go back here to different texts but YouTube recommended me a video for some reason where a priest was interviewed whose parish was using the 1549 Prayer Book. Is this authorised, i.e. is any Prayer Book permitted or have some "revisions" (sorry for that clunky term) rendered previous versions not allowed?
In the Church of England, only the 1622 BCP and Common Worship are authorised for worship.
1662 rather than 1622 - though I’m sure that’s a typo.
Not just previous ‘revisions’ - there’s a BCP 1928 that never got through Parliament so technically isn’t allowed to be used (even though a lot of it has turned up in various ways in things that *have been* allowed at various subsequent times, IIRC Alternative Services Series One was basically 1928.
To develop Pomona’s point, the legal services for the CofE are Common Worship or BCP 1662 *except* that the former incorporates a lot of ASS1 as an option - it does come out a lot at weddings (including my own). Why, I don’t really know, unless it’s just so that you can have something in ‘traditional’ language where the bride doesn’t have to obey.
True, but plenty of places ignore that. I once heard a story about a new incumbent who was about to be inducted. Before the service, he read the declaration in front of the bishop (as they always do) and after the bit about only using “forms authorised by canon” he muttered under his breath “more or less”.
Of course, you would need some Clerkes, to sing the musick of Master Merbecke...
Trendy vicars try to make their services as 'un-Anglican' as possible.
HTB-look-alikes, I'm looking at you.
I attended one recently where they didn't even have any Bible readings and some kind of plug/presentation about one of their albeit very worthy social outreach programmes instead of a sermon.
A few unconnected worship songs that led nowhere and that was it.
Was outrage!
I'm conscious of the temptation to rant, and even express fatwas, about other traditions that seem alien. But I think it's OK to ask questions. So I would like to ask the leaders/ ministers in charge of such a service how they believed it fell within the definitions of an authorised Anglican act of worship. Also to ask the congregation members what they thought about it.
The traditional Anglican/Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox/Roman Catholic liturgy, by contrast, will have several scripture readings as well as canticles and psalms. In addition, the language of the rest of the liturgy will often include allusions to or direct quotes from biblical texts. The supposedly 'bible-believing' groups, not so much. I've never heard a convincing explanation of the reason.
Sounds like the inside of my late biretta wearing grandfather's head!!
I refer (angrily from inside that tradition) to that type of thing as "bible free Sunday "
I would say that there seems to be a need at a congregational or party level for a fixed level of conservatism.
If the theology is liberalised, that seems to be balanced by a certain rigidity of liturgical practice. Meanwhile, when the theology remains solidly conservative, this provides latitude for more liberalisation in service structure and content. This may explain why Charismatics, in the main, ended up as a subset of Evangelicals, and Evangelicals took on Charismatic worship material quite readily. Or to put it another way, why worship songs performed by worship bands are overwhelmingly conservative in theology and found in services bearing only a passing resemblance to anything in the Prayer Book or Common Worship - a pattern seen both within and without the CofE.
Personally I'm long since past thinking it matters much. I'm mostly bothered by (a) damaging* theology and (b) what I know I can or can't cope with**.
*subjective I know.
**only way I can cope with worship band style stuff in any quantity now is from behind a musical instrument where I feel like an imposter but can direct my attention into musicality.
I’d not thought about it like that - fixed level of conservatism - but I think it holds for all churches even if only at the level of ‘regular congregation need to know what they’re going to get’ (even where what they’re going to get is free-form, extempore and tongues -IYSWIM)
I don’t really mind what other churches/Churches get up to, but I know what I want!*
*ideally BCP and the New English Hymnal (or Hymns A&M as a close second). Maybe an Angelus. Confession on tap. Mattins. Oxford MA hood.
Fair enough. Not my preference but I will go along with it. EXCEPT THAT I'm pretty sure the rules are not so flexible as to dispense with the requirement for reading scripture. And Canon Law certainly says that the Eucharist should (if not, for exceptional reasons, must) be celebrated in every parish every Sunday.
The canon cited and quoted says: (Italics added.)
I will admit that the lawyer in me is stumbling over this a bit. Is the canon really so flexible that the main service(s) on a Sunday can be considered “occasions for which no provision is made” in the authorized liturgies of the Church of England?
Or am I completely missing something?
There are a number of YouTube videos from three years ago showing this service, with priest, server, and perhaps one or two others present. No Clerkes, and no synging, alas, so it's a bit of a priestly monologue. The 1552/1559/1662 revisions were too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVF6FMMIpOo&list=RDiVF6FMMIpOo&start_radio=1&t=1998s
Those vestments look more like 19th century Roman than 16th century English.
The incumbent there is a very Good Thing. It’s nearly my neck of the woods.
I'm not really that worried what various churches get up to but it was a surprise to find no scripture readings in an ostensibly 'Bible-believing' church.
I think @KarlLB is onto something with his levels of conservatism.
Nevertheless, the Orthodox tend to be rather theologically conversative and very conservative liturgically.
So a certain rigidity in liturgical structure doesn't necessarily imply liberalism in theology. The same applies to certain strands of Anglo-Catholicism and particular RC parishes.
I'm sure the same applies to Lutheran churches and some sections of the Reformed side of things.
It could also be the case that the pre-sheep are divinely directed you way because there is no other option but they actually constitute a mix of personalities who would be happier in different styles of churches.
"TransAlpine"?
I feel a mix is what is called for; I don't think 'youth programmes' are particularly great, but on the other hand teens mature at different rates and not everyone is up for the pressure of the kind of apprenticeship you laid out. Fundamentally the things that work well seem to have a combination of connection with the rest of the church, closer connections to older mentors of some kind and some kind of role that has actual significance rather than being a pre-adult creche, and all these things are achievable within the scope of traditional youth work or none.
See also: ultra montane. In this context those Anglo-Catholics who look beyond the Alps, specifically to Rome, for their liturgy.
@Lamb Chopped can answer for herself of course and better than I can on her behalf. She will correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression that this isn't an issue of 'different styles of churches' but one where Vietnamese enquirers/converts/believers are 'sent' to Lamb Chopped's church for catechesis or instruction - on loan as it were.
There is then the expectation that they will return to the church which 'sent' or 'loaned' them once Lamb Chopped, her husband and their regular congregation have done their 'job' - one which the 'sending' churches are either incapable or too lazy to do themselves.
The Orthodox instance I cited was not dissimilar although my own solution - FWIW - would be different to that of the priest I know who is frustrated by this.
But then, I'm not a priest or a church leader ...
It is, of course, not always easy to discern whether any of these things are divinely orchestrated in order for some mysterious purpose to be worked out.
Whether this is the case or not it must certainly be very frustrating for those on the receiving end.
Well yes! But in most schools the Head would ensure that Miss checked that her pupils were observing the dress code. And while bishops have many other more important, matters to deal with, they should surely be ensuring that the churches in their jurisdiction were recognisably what they claim to be.
If I go to an Indian restaurant I expect to be offered Indian food. That restaurant might well cater for other tastes by offering burgers and chips (sorry, fries) in addition but its core menu would reflect its origins. If it stopped serving recognisably Indian dishes altogether it should (and no doubt would) rebrand as something else.
A hundred years ago the Book of Common Prayer defined the menu in Church of England churches. By that stage, other tastes were beginning to be catered for in small ways. Now it's become much more à la carte but there still is a menu. If you go to the C of E you should expect to find the old favourites still on the menu, whatever else might be included.
Yes. I notice that the traditional British chippie offers far more than fish and chips these days - those hideous apologies for sausages for instance and 'nuggets' even.
But you still get cod and chips.
To be fair, even the trendiest of Anglican outfits still make a nod to tradition in some form or other, but not having a single Bible reading is a new one on me.
I'm told by lovely bloke from that end of the spectrum that this is unusual.
I should have been clearer.
We planted the first Vietnamese Christian church in our city of any sort, as far as I know. There was a Bible study of sorts meeting way out in the suburbs, with perhaps a dozen Vietnamese who were well off by community standards and had some English--but as far as I'm aware they never evangelized at all--and we knew them pretty well, we worked with them for some years.
There was also a Vietnamese Jesuit in the city, but I'm not aware of him gathering anybody together. It was his friend my professor who introduced us to the need in the city--we had previously been planning to spend the next four or so years in grad school, tending to our own personal needs and preparing for the future. I had in fact made my husband promise NOT to start a church while we were still in school, because I had seen my inlaws doing it--and the pastor's home in this context is always the community center, open to everybody at all hours of the night and day, and housing people who need it. I knew we'd come to it, I just hoped for a couple of years to be ... well, married, first. Because I was only 22, and wanted time to get used to my new life.
Ha. If I had had sense, I should have gotten God to promise me that (yeah, right!)
But we didn't know that, when we signed up for grad school in that city. And when Father Ong invited us to Jesuit Hall for dinner, he dumped the news on us that there were what, seven to ten thousand Vietnamese refugees in the city, almost all of them brand new and with no English at all, with almost no support services (I.Institute was overwhelmed as usual), and with no interpreters to speak of, either. I mean, pregnant women were using their toddlers to interpret for the OB/GYN in the hospital, it was that bad. There were no telephone interpretation services, either. And everybody's lives going to hell in a handbasket as a result...
Well, you hear that and what you are going to do? When the pair of you speak both languages (me like a child, but still, better than nothing). It's sort of like being the Carpathia trying to fish the Titanic survivors out of the water. You yell "All hands on deck!" and go for it.
...
Now this naturally results in a helluva lot of people asking you why you're doing what you do. To which we say, "Jesus sent us," and carry on. Some of them will ask you who this Jesus is, and well, that results in a church being born. Others will just get what they need and keep going, and we're good with that, too.
But the ones who stick--the ones who ask us about Jesus--
Well, you have to find a place for them to meet, and get hold of some Bibles (that would be our living room, for a start), and then begin developing teaching materials, because there's next to nothing out there, you can't order stuff, nobody's even written it. So it falls on you. And that means catechesis--helping people understand their faith and mature in it. And it took us about three years before we had people asking for baptism, and then we had years and years of baptisms of all ages, and so forth, and meanwhile we were teaching about the Lord's Supper, and preparing the whole congregation for that... So you develop and use more materials. And we were just completely overwhelmed.
And other tiny churches began emerging, and we were glad to see that, because God knows, two people wasn't enough to handle anything. Except that we got frustrated when we realized that their main church growth strategy was to call up our people and offer them money, or food, or various inducements to leave our church and start attending theirs. I shit you not. We know, because quite a few of our people reported these conversations to us. Some asked, "Do you think I should take them up on it?" which was awkward. Of course we left that call to them... But in general, we just rolled our eyes and just let everybody do what they were going to do, because we were still in emergency mode, there was no shortage of non-believers and new believers coming to us through the emergency room doors, so to speak, it was kind of like a fire hose trained on us, and we didn't have TIME to get into a hissy fit spitting contest with the sheep stealers.
So it went like that for maybe 20 years, time enough for the children of that first generation of refugees to grow up, and to begin taking responsibility for translation/interpretation in their families. And was it Clinton? who more or less put a stop to accepting any more Vietnamese refugees into this country, except for family reunification, which meant we weren't meeting people at the airport every week anymore, and trying to get them settled, with beds and pots and things. And then we started having room to breathe, and could go back (mostly) to the more usual pastoral responsibilities, instead of spending every other night in the emergency room (A & E, for some of you). And of course, I'm disabled and getting more so, and Mr Lamb is nearly 80, so it's a good thing that the rush has tailed off.
But do you see why I was so freaking FRUSTRATED with the other churches? We needed them to be doing what we were doing, meeting human need; and sometimes they did! But every time they took the lazy way out and poached our people, as soon as they were mature enough to start being useful... Grrrrrr.
In any case, by this point it no longer matters.
Yeah. I was trying to find a vocabulary that adequately described the difference between the two - in particular the more disconnected ones I’d seen (often in large churches)
Perhaps I should alter my "fixed" to "minimum". Holding to one of a conservative liturgical practice or theology may *allow* for liberalisation in the other, but doesn't force it. There are of course also the Fundies in Frocks Forward in Faith types who are conservative in both.
If anyone does know of a congregation liberal in both theology and liturgy I'd be fascinated.
Would Quakers count? Also from what I know, that does describe Unitarians quite well.
I believe most MCC (Metropolitan Community Church, a denomination created to serve the LGBTQ+ community) congregations tend towards the liberal liturgy end of things.
I'm not sure I would describe Society (FinF) churches as uniformly conservative in terms of theology in general - not in the same way that their Evangelical equivalents are. I'd say that there's the same spectrum that you find in RC churches, in the UK at least. In my experience, the Orthodox in the UK tend to be significantly more rigidly conservative in terms of theology. I think there's often an assumption that Society churches are just con-evos in cassocks - this is very much NOT the case, having had extensive experience of both. Ocasionally you get the odd outlier that is like that but I'd say that they are very unusual, and tend to be errr more unusual socially too.
@betjemaniac I would welcome your thoughts here - would you say I'm right?
I think like with liberal theology, a liberal attitude towards liturgy is very much a spectrum.
But off the cuff, would the Iona Community and its Wild Goose Resources count as liberal theologically and liberal liturgically?