Formal or informal? Pros and cons
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
This follows on from discussions on the 'Service Leader' thread.
I've been wondering about the relative merits and demerits - whether theologically, practically, etc etc - of what we might call more 'formal' and less 'formal' liturgies. And before we start, let me state that I'm convinced that every kind of church, without exception, has a liturgical format of some kind. Even the Quakers.
We all have a beginning, middle and an end. We all have cues and prompts and expectations.
What I hope to discuss here isn't whether some formats are 'better' than others, or get into 'formal liturgy = good / informal = bad' - or vice versa.
Rather, I am interested in exploring what the positive aspects are in each case, and what are the downfalls and pitfalls.
As many of you know, I've had experience of each having moved from nominal Anglicanism into evangelicalism with a prolonged charismatic evangelical phase leading to an 'emergent' period, as it were, and am now Orthodox.
So I'm familiar with various flavours of Anglicanism, traditional 'non-conformist' worship (Baptist, Methodist, URC) and the various charismatic evangelical 'streams'. I'm less au fait with RC worship, but have a broad sense of how it 'works'.
To kick off, I'll outline the pros and cons, as I see them, within my own affiliation. Most pluses have a minus side and I suspect that's true across the board.
Pluses
- As you'd expect, Orthodox worship is very orthodox/small o/Big O. The formularies and doxologies are very Trinitarian.
- It follows a regular lectionary/calendar (with variations across different jurisdications) so follows the key 'events' of the ecclesial year.
- It culminates at Easter which is always quite something.
- You can dip in and out and pretty much know what you are going to get.
- It's very kinetic. We bow, cross ourselves, make prostrations (if we are able), venerate icons, light candles, fast, feast ...
- It's very 'multimedia' - lights, vestment, icons, action ...
- At its best the words are highly poetic and profound.
- It's holistic and becomes part and parcel of your way of life - a daily office, a round of fasts and feasts, high days and holy days.
I am aware that we share many of these characteristics with other traditions. I am not claiming exclusivity.
Downsides
- Familiarity can breed contempt. Various cultural and even superstitious accretions can get in the way.
- The language isn't always 'understanded of the people'. That varies.
- A lack of active congregational participation could be a problem for many people. Unless you are in the choir there's not much scope for congregational singing, although some people do sing along.
- Does it really have to go on so long?
Some would find the apparent lack of opportunity for 'self-expression' to be a downside. I don't find that. Worship isn't about showing off our talents or abilities. If we sing or read or do whatever else in a service it is for the benefit of others not to draw attention to ourselves.
That said, active participation (in whatever church context) can be a way of strengthening and developing our faith. But it's not an opportunity to demonstrate how holy or spiritual we may consider ourselves to be or want others to think we are.
For some, but by no means all, 'cradle Orthodox', the Liturgy can become part of the wall-paper. Others can become fixated with minutiae such as the 'correct' way to light a candle or venerate an icon or ...
It takes effort and discipline. 'Wisdom! Stand upright!' 'Let us attend!'
That's no bad thing. We offer a 'rational and bloodless worship.' We enter God's courts with reverence and fear. We aren't there to psyche ourselves up, make ourselves feel better or get some kind of buzz - but if that happens, then fine.
It ain't easy to get into and perhaps there is something counter-cultural about that.
Orthodox worship isn't a 'passion play.' We 'participate' in what it depicts and represents - literally re-presents and however hoarse the choir or shambolic some of the liturgical 'moves' that's always a key.
Other traditions will have parallels, differences and their own strengths and weaknesses.
These are my truths. Show me yours.
I've been wondering about the relative merits and demerits - whether theologically, practically, etc etc - of what we might call more 'formal' and less 'formal' liturgies. And before we start, let me state that I'm convinced that every kind of church, without exception, has a liturgical format of some kind. Even the Quakers.
We all have a beginning, middle and an end. We all have cues and prompts and expectations.
What I hope to discuss here isn't whether some formats are 'better' than others, or get into 'formal liturgy = good / informal = bad' - or vice versa.
Rather, I am interested in exploring what the positive aspects are in each case, and what are the downfalls and pitfalls.
As many of you know, I've had experience of each having moved from nominal Anglicanism into evangelicalism with a prolonged charismatic evangelical phase leading to an 'emergent' period, as it were, and am now Orthodox.
So I'm familiar with various flavours of Anglicanism, traditional 'non-conformist' worship (Baptist, Methodist, URC) and the various charismatic evangelical 'streams'. I'm less au fait with RC worship, but have a broad sense of how it 'works'.
To kick off, I'll outline the pros and cons, as I see them, within my own affiliation. Most pluses have a minus side and I suspect that's true across the board.
Pluses
- As you'd expect, Orthodox worship is very orthodox/small o/Big O. The formularies and doxologies are very Trinitarian.
- It follows a regular lectionary/calendar (with variations across different jurisdications) so follows the key 'events' of the ecclesial year.
- It culminates at Easter which is always quite something.
- You can dip in and out and pretty much know what you are going to get.
- It's very kinetic. We bow, cross ourselves, make prostrations (if we are able), venerate icons, light candles, fast, feast ...
- It's very 'multimedia' - lights, vestment, icons, action ...
- At its best the words are highly poetic and profound.
- It's holistic and becomes part and parcel of your way of life - a daily office, a round of fasts and feasts, high days and holy days.
I am aware that we share many of these characteristics with other traditions. I am not claiming exclusivity.
Downsides
- Familiarity can breed contempt. Various cultural and even superstitious accretions can get in the way.
- The language isn't always 'understanded of the people'. That varies.
- A lack of active congregational participation could be a problem for many people. Unless you are in the choir there's not much scope for congregational singing, although some people do sing along.
- Does it really have to go on so long?
Some would find the apparent lack of opportunity for 'self-expression' to be a downside. I don't find that. Worship isn't about showing off our talents or abilities. If we sing or read or do whatever else in a service it is for the benefit of others not to draw attention to ourselves.
That said, active participation (in whatever church context) can be a way of strengthening and developing our faith. But it's not an opportunity to demonstrate how holy or spiritual we may consider ourselves to be or want others to think we are.
For some, but by no means all, 'cradle Orthodox', the Liturgy can become part of the wall-paper. Others can become fixated with minutiae such as the 'correct' way to light a candle or venerate an icon or ...
It takes effort and discipline. 'Wisdom! Stand upright!' 'Let us attend!'
That's no bad thing. We offer a 'rational and bloodless worship.' We enter God's courts with reverence and fear. We aren't there to psyche ourselves up, make ourselves feel better or get some kind of buzz - but if that happens, then fine.
It ain't easy to get into and perhaps there is something counter-cultural about that.
Orthodox worship isn't a 'passion play.' We 'participate' in what it depicts and represents - literally re-presents and however hoarse the choir or shambolic some of the liturgical 'moves' that's always a key.
Other traditions will have parallels, differences and their own strengths and weaknesses.
These are my truths. Show me yours.
Comments
Even in the Presbyterian church there is often the taking of the Bible to the pulpit and the standing for hymns etc.
Just a few weeks ago I was at a long Requiem Mass which lasted almost two hours,while a few months ago I was at a long secular funeral which lasted for the same time.
I knew what was coming next in the Requiem Mass including the long tributes from the three adult children of the deceased but didn't know what was coming next in the long series of tributes to the deceased at the secular funeral or when it was going to come to an end.
In December again I was at a funeral Mass where someone said to me that they had found it complicated as they didn't know what was going to happen next.
Whatever the form of the rite we all feel much more comfortable and relaxed if we know what to expect(whether we agree with it or not).
I didn't start dancing and clapping or 'speaking in tongues' the first time I attended a charismatic meeting, for instance. Nor did I immediately start using the Marian material as I groped my way into incorporating Orthodox prayers into my own times of personal prayer.
Equally, I still miss some Protestant hymns, particularly the Wesley ones. But then, there's nothing to stop me singing those at home.
I think the 'familiarity' thing is interesting. I remember the late Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist, writing about a large Pentecostal rally he'd attended as part of a research project. There'd been various 'contributions' including 'tongues and interpretation.' When he spoke to the participants afterwards he found that few had any real recollection of the apparent 'messages' or content 'decoded' from these utterances.
It was sufficient for the participants that they'd happened in the first place. They were seen as proof positive that the Spirit was among them, irrespective of what the apparent 'prophecies' and 'interpretations' were about.
But I digress ...
For those present they served to reinforce their sense of purpose and community, regardless of how 'authentic' or otherwise they may have been.
And normally I would be a big fan of routine and familiarity as this is important for managing my bipolar disorder on a day to day basis. But my bipolar disorder can’t cope with stress or conflict (I am highly sensitive and empathetic) and we had to leave the Anglican parish church during the infamous church split as I found it very distressing. So we ended up in a charismatic church even though I wouldn’t consider myself a charismatic. I like the modern worship style and the preaching is great. But the key draw is the unconditional sense of community and acceptance. For someone like me, who is different, this means more than the other components, including familiarity. For all the modern embracing of inclusivity, including disability, some forms of mental health disorder remain taboo and we are often rejected in society.
There is something about the style though that can encourage 'self expression' in a way that can topple over into exhibitionism.
My late wife was an introvert and always struggled in full on charismatic settings because she felt under pressure to be demonstrative. The mildly charismatic Baptist church we attended for 6 years suited her far more.
Like you, I'm a mix of introvert and sociable animal. I travelled alone in Portugal last week and found no difficulty chatting to people and even joining complete strangers in restaurants.
Irrespective of the theology and practices - not that we can disregard those - I do think the great strength of charismatic evangelical churches is the quality of the fellowship and strength of relationships. I can meet people I knew from church 30 or 40 years ago and still feel a strong sense of connection with them.
There can be a downside to that insofar as they can become insular and cut off from wider society, but I don't think that's as much of an issue as it used to be.
The closeness of the relationships can make it harder for people to move on from churches like this, which isn't to say that they are cultic necessarily - although some undoubtedly are to some extent. But that can happen in churches of other traditions too.
The contemporary worship style no longer appeals to me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand its appeal or think any less of people who enjoy it.
And yes, the preaching can be very good too and I'd guess more balanced than it would have been 30 or 40 years ago when these sort of churches were laying out their manifestos.
But yes, charismatic churches tend to suit extroverts, but that doesn't mean that everyone who attends a charismatic church is an extrovert.
I actually found informal services were actually more rigid when it came to change of the seasons. Since they were more or less barebones, they just were not as adaptable as I would have liked.
The congregation I am working with now uses an informal service. I find I tend to insert some more formal parts to it that fits what I will be preaching on. This next Sunday, for instance, is Pentecost--Western Church Year. I will be preaching on Acts 2. What caught my eye was the diversity of the new church which I will work on. Therefore, I wrote the Call to Worship, the prayer of the church, and the hymns will be about Diversity in the church.
On the other hand, I prefer a more formal service that follows along the outline of the Mass of the Western Church. There is something powerful when I consider other Christians around the world are following a similar liturgy that had roots in the post and will continue into the future.
Now, if you really want a formal service, go to a Christian Scientist service. My wife was once Christian Scientist, so I went to a couple of them. Everything is so formal in them. It was written by Mary Baker Eddy, so it has not changed for over 100 years. There are no sermons, but there are mandated readings that are used in all Christian Science Churches on a given Sunday. The readings are all in King James language.
I didn't know how Christian Scientists conduct their meetings.
On the general points raised ...
I find it interesting that some more 'informally' liturgical churches have begun to introduce the recitation of the Creed for instance, or to celebrate other 'calendar' events beyond Christmas and Easter, whilst retaining a more 'informal' style as it were.
They've clearly rediscovered a 'need' for that.
Even as someone who has opted for more ritual and flummery, I can certainly understand the sense of participation and fellowship that some of these churches achieve in the way they share communion, for instance.
However we cut it, we all develop set patterns and routines. That's only human.
I think there can be equal and opposite pit-falls on both sides.
In some circles almost anything goes provided it looks and feels 'spontaneous' - as though apparent spontaneity in and of itself is a mark of true spirituality.
Conversely, and please don't misunderstand me, I'm not singling Anglo-Catholics out for censure, some more ritualised forms of worship are ratcheted up to such a degree that participants can hardly breathe.
I've seen High Church Anglicans who make the RCs or Orthodox look like the Plymouth Brethren.
It can impressive, mind, as liturgical spectacle.
There can be a lack of reverence in what I'd call 'studied informality' - Hi, I'm the vicar. Call me Dave.
But something that is naturally less formal and 'unforced' can be very authentic.
I suppose authenticity is the key and that can be apparent in any setting. It's not something you can bottle and label.
Errors is an interesting word to use in the context of liturgy.
For introverts, it depends on the introvert and the geneal attitude of the setting. If you're happy for stuff to be going on for others that passes you by, and allowed by the setting to just let that happen, then it's fine. If, as in my case, that tends to cause a bit of a spiritual crisis, or there's pressure to manifest the way others are doing, you get problems.
This is key for me in any faith community, that people feel accepted and welcome. We often have homeless people sleeping rough come in and those detoxing from meths or alcohol, as well as people with serious mental health issues who wander around or have emotional outbursts triggered by readings or parts of the liturgy. They need to feel at home even in a more formal liturgy, and be given tea and a decent plate of food after Mass.
Indeed. Whilst I agree with @Arethosemyfeet that 'precision' in worship can provide a meditative quality rather than what we might consider 'spectacle' - and I've certainly been impressed by that in some Anglo-Catholic settings - it can spill over into liturgical judgementalism.
Heck, our parish priest comes from an Anglo-Catholic background and can be a real stickler for rubrics and the 'right' way of doing things.
He can also be remarkably inconsistent and lets some things slide without comment.
Some of the Eastern Europeans in our parish can get huffy with visitors or other parishioners for not lighting candles in a particular way or doing this, that or the other 'correctly'.
There are many variations in customs, posture and actions across the Orthosphere and many of them will be present at any one time in a multicultural parish.
So, of course, Romanians may assume that 'their' way of doing things is common across Orthodoxy as a whole or the Greeks likewise etc etc.
Meanwhile, what @KarlLB said about the introvert/extrovert thing in certain settings. Other settings have other issues.
And @MaryLouise and @Heavenlyannie, whatever the 'style' or flavour of church, we all have to find ways of welcoming and accommodating those who may be 'different' or 'divergent' in some way or marginalised by wider society.
Some churches are better than others at this and we all have a long way to go.
Fair comment. Deviations from the intended sequence of events?
I think many churches have their "regulars" who come in for various kinds of support - financial or emotional. Offering that is a part of what churches should be about.
I hear you @Thunderbunk but people who are hungry, sleepless, psychotic, paranoid, lonely and frightened need God, Communion and a caring community, and that need can't be met elsewhere.
In pondering my journey of late I've been very aware of how formal liturgy has formed and trained me in prayer and understanding of the faith.
Yes, and I know all of us as we age will experience disability, mental confusion or forgetfulness, panic and disorientation, loss of self, shattering bereavements and find ourselves a burden and nuisance to others around us. Social services and healthcare aren't able to nurture the soul or provide community and belonging. When @Heavenlyannie describes her church, it is my kind of place.
I have always admired you @MaryLouise but I see this as getting into very dangerous territory, in which louder, more immediate needs are given higher priority than quieter, more systemic needs. If that's where you're going, I can't go there, and I don't think it's where anyone should go. Hidden needs are just as valid, and just as existential. The church is not only a provider of services to those who don't identify with it - it is also a community of those who do, and if it injures its community beyond a certain point, it fractures that community and can't function authentically at all.
This is not theoretical - it's started happening in my church, because of another initiative which is of itself excellent. I don't want the initiative to stop, but if the interruptions carry on I will have no choice but to leave, because I can't worship shut down. It's just not possible.
To me, the point is this. The destruction of an intentional soundscape must be acknowledged for the violent act that it is. This is not to say that everyone who does it must be held to account, since many have their own reasons as existential to them as my need for that intentional soundscape is to me. The point is to create a level playing field between those needs, and work out how both can be accommodated. Separate accommodation, with mutual respect, is essential.
I think it depends again on what one is accustomed to.
I might find a particular type of RC Mass relaxed and flexible while someone who was not used to it might find the same Mass rigid and inflexible.
By the same token a person unused to 'worship songs' for 15 minutes at the beginning of a service might find this 'rigid and inflexible' while another person used to this could find that it was relaxed and informal and prepared them for the following service.
For several weeks at our Saturday evening Mass we had a baby which screamed loudly from the moment it was brought into church until the moment it left.
One had, on the one hand, to admire the parents for persevering with bringing the child to the church, while feeling sorry for the other parishioners who couldn't really hear anything else but the screaming.
There may have been some reason as to why the parents could not have come at separate times. Anyway I am glad to say that the child has now adapted its ways to those of the Holy Roman Church and is for the most part as good as gold.
The thing is, I'm only just becoming aware of them myself, and even more recently have started to actually articulate them and seek to have them met. We have another person with similar needs in the congregation, which makes me feel a little less selfish. Also, being (I am 95%) derived from simultaneous ADHD and autism, mine are contradictory and - *sighs* - just very difficult to even articulate. Then you get the shower of shame which comes with ADHD, which I've been living with since I posted the above. This is a shitty journey, but one I need to have. The irony is that I'm the church's inclusivity officer, so I have to, and do, advocate for the inclusion of people who make my inclusion difficult. It just seems to get stranger all the time.
What @Lamb Chopped said is a very good way forward
I guess that makes me rigid and inflexible?
More seriously, it depends on expectations, and they can vary not only according to the denomination or churchmanship, but according to the specific service itself. My expectations of an informal Family Service are different from those of a Parish Communion. Tomorrow we have a mishmash of both and some of us are rather concerned.
I have more than a fleeting experience of most denominations and worship styles. My preferences have evolved.
The Open Brethren Gospel Hall where I went to Sunday School and to some services, whilst very free in having no liturgy, was very strict about what was allowed. Lovely caring people, but I outgrew the Sunday School when the leader used poor grammar, and moved to a Bible class in a free Baptist Church. Here my faith grew, thanks to good teaching, but I found the service a one-man show, literally, as the minister even sang a solo from the pulpit most weeks ( he had a fine tenor voice).
At university I went to an Anglican church and felt I was coming home to where I belonged. I love the music and the liturgy, the structure and beauty, even or especially now that there is so much flexibility in what is permitted within that structure. I have remained an Anglican all my adult life, but also experienced Methodist and URC styles in ecumenical situations.
There are so many varieties of interpretation that every church is different, and will change again with the next minister. And then there’s that old saying about there being no point looking for the perfect church as when you join it, it will no longer be perfect.
Agree, for the same reasons
Uncanny, though I’ve got the pieces of paper as of last year.
Yes, this. I wonder why we must all squeeze into one shape of service, while we have such rich sources to draw from that surely we can cater for everybody?
In a multi-parish benefice, why not different styles in each separate church?
I listened to a church leader complaining that he had two thriving church communities in his church, both happy and growing in their own setting at different times on a Sunday: one formal, one informal. He wanted to combine them, as he thought they should be one worshipping family together. Why?
Because IME people don’t travel past their own church, and on the days there’s no service most don’t go anywhere else, they have a Sunday off.
So the quickest way to kill off virtually all the congregations simultaneously is to say ‘Parish A, you’re the messy/family one, parish B, you’re BCP, parish C- here’s your praise band’ etc
Of course, if you happen to be able to pull that off organically because that’s what the individual parishes actually are then lovely, but in many (most?) places it won’t work like that.
In practice, what actually seems to work a bit better in rural areas is rotating worship styles week to week within the same church - so one week messy church, the next communion, the next BCP prayer of some sort etc. that has the advantage that two of those services can be lay led, allowing the priest to be elsewhere. Then, small communities being small, you might *might* get everyone turning up to everything, on the basis that supporting the stuff they don’t like will mean the others will come and support the stuff they do.
Keeping things on the road in the sticks is tough.
No style of worship suits everyone. My previous church (which I only left because of moving half way across the country) was Anglican charismatic. I'd been a member for over 25 years, almost since it began as a church plant without a building. People from that church are lifelong friends. They have accepted many into the church which people might not expect to be there, and who did not feel at home in a more formal setting. They run rotas for cooking when someone has a baby or is seriously ill. They gave out free coffee and offers to talk with people in the market place for years, so much so that the neighbouring church managed to get this project shut down because it was bringing in 'undesirables'... They weren't perfect but they did their best to 'walk the talk'.
Having said that, I recognise that the relaxed and ad hoc nature of a typical service there would be a nightmare for some people. The inability to predict exactly what was about to happen (even though the shape of the service rarely altered) would cause problems for some, even while it was a help to many because they didn't feel that they needed to do anything specific.
We did tend to have a 15-minute 'block' of worship songs, during which people could sit and listen, stand up and sing, walk around, dance, even leave if it was too much - no-one really paid any attention to what anyone else was doing. That space was for you to worship in the way best suited to you. Hence we had an awful lot of introverted and shy people who often said the worship was the thing that they found most helpful. It was far less stressful than having a book of words and instructions to stand up and sit down at various times, for fear they would do the 'wrong' thing.
My current church is fairly standard Church in Wales, and I love them dearly, but it's not the style that's best suited to me. However, they are extremely accepting of all kinds of people, which is heartwarming. There are a couple of toddlers who are at the 'crawling really fast' stage, and everyone keeps an eye out to ensure that if they get loose, they don't hurt themselves or others on sharp-edged pieces of church architecture!
Sending hugs especially Re: shame for ADHD. I’m also, I’m extremely confident, on both the ADHD and autism spectra, and have just gotten a book I need to remember to read called ADHD is Awesome by Penn and Kim Holderness. Sending more hugs, just because. ❤️
I always have to clarify, when describing myself as Anglo-Catholic, that I mean in terms of sacramental theology rather than what you describe regarding “liturgical judgmentalism” above. I don’t like it if the liturgy is one of those modern experimental ones, especially if things like the formulation of the Trinity is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost (that actually will encourage me to find a new church), but most of that has to do with theology rather than style per se. A folk mass with a priest in blue jeans and a full-on “smells and bells” service have the same presence of Christ in the Eucharist, according to my theology, and that’s what matters most to me. (I might enjoy a given service more, but that’s not the same thing…)
@ThunderBunk I'm mortified and sorry to have been so insensitive and I'm thinking carefully about what you wrote because my intention in describing how we as a church try to overcome the huge stigma against those with mental health difficulties in our community was not intended to exclude, shame or further stigmatise those with different, quieter issues around neurodiversity.
I'm not sure I have any answers and we don't have the resources for solutions suggested by others here. The shortage of priests in our local Catholic churches here means we can't offer extra Masses or devotional services at different times (we couldn't afford a cry-room for teething babies either). There is a big cultural difference here when it comes to the crowded, growing Catholic churches of the developing world: many newcomers are refugees or asylum-seekers waiting for papers for UN refugee resettlement programmes before they move on to Stockholm or Dublin or Vancouver, and the structure of the Mass is familiar to them as Catholics from the Congo or Angola; these are majority Black churches where English is a second or third language so we need interpreters and deaf signage; we have a number of regulars with stress-psychosis or war-related PTSD, unemployment and drug addictions, and while their presence may be disruptive, they are much more than a 'behavioural problem' to be excluded. Many of those who arrive in a state of crisis and trauma do heal and being treated with respect and helped to find their feet with work and accommodation is part of that healing. We've had a long uphill battle to overcome homophobia, transphobia and sexism and that has involved a great deal of painful personal advocacy.
Liturgies that are orderly, calm quiet and aesthetically pleasing are something I miss, and those are not small aspects of worship. At the same time, I have found that, as someone pointed out earlier, the strong over-arching and familiar structure of the Mass and regulatory traditions of Catholicism are able to 'hold' the messier, flawed realities of who we are as people in a troubled, violent and chaotic society and I'm grateful for that.
But I agree that a 'good liturgy' can hold things together.
I was just reflecting on the fact that I sang in a choir this morning, for a full choral eucharist, attended by probably 200 people. This is not quiet, but all the sound was intentional. Even so, I couldn't let my guard down entirely, as I would want to normally when being part of a celebration of the eucharist. But then, I could offer my singing, and enjoy the singing on its, and my own terms. I really don't think I could do that every week, but it's nice to do so occasionally. I think that's the thing a lot of people miss; by no means are all liturgical singers agnostics or atheists - considerable numbers are, but considerable numbers aren't - and I'm not there primarily to support others in worship; I'm there to offer the "cream of my art" to slightly misquote Herbert, in my own right.
@MaryLouise I just wanted to say, albeit late, that I accept entirely what you are saying and don't regard any particular difference as existing between us. These situations are difficult in so many ways, because there is often a whole host of competing and mutually exclusive needs at play, which must nevertheless be met at the same time because there are no resources to do anything else. This becomes particularly difficult when, as is a lot less rare than churches seem to think, the people who are or provide the resources have needs themselves. I think this tendency to divide people into givers within the church and receivers outside it is a fatal oversimplification, and a source of huge number of problems. To me, it's the effect of seeing the church as an institution rather than a more or less haphazard chain of communities, and ultimately of people.