I think I am too much of a materialist to understand why adding some tannins and caffeine to said water would suddenly change it from Acceptable to Unacceptable. Coffee is still mostly water.
I’d say it’s about the different cultural connotations that water, coffee and other drinks carry, together with whether it’s something one needs to do during worship as opposed to just being what one wants to do. I want coffee in the morning, and on Sundays I drink my coffee before the service starts. (Our place does have coffee on offer on Sunday mornings. People will take coffee into Sunday school, but not into the service.)
I don’t judge anyone else, clergy, choir, or congregants, for having water or anything else they need for their health and wellbeing in church, especially if they are elderly, infirm, or disabled.
I also am thinking about this issue from a very traditional (though not traditionalist) catholic point of view where water is a very important sign used in baptism, the Eucharist (when it is mixed with wine in RC and some other churches), and in the Asperges and Vidi Aquam sprinklings/blessings of the congregation. Having water up near the altar for any other purpose confuses the significance of this sign, so if I am in my early 40’s and reasonably healthy, I worry that I am doing something wrong by being visible drinking from a bottle of water during the service. (It does not help that at my church the choir stalls are directly facing the congregation and are to the immediate right of the altar, whereas the altar servers and readers are sitting in stalls that face the left side of the altar and not the congregation. So I’m very visible.
But my throat feels dry and a little sore and my voice feels strained by the end of the service. I’m probably not singing in the best way and my voice isn’t terribly good. I know if I asked just about any priest within 100 miles they would all tell me it is fine to have and drink the water. But I still worry that, regardless of the valid reasons others have, I don’t have a good enough excuse and that I am doing harm to the liturgy.
Jesus would tell you that the liturgy was made for humanity, and not humanity for the liturgy (compare Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:1-8). He also added a list of other shocking rule breakers that were approved by God. See if this can help with the freedom you need.
I also am thinking about this issue from a very traditional (though not traditionalist) catholic point of view where water is a very important sign used in baptism, the Eucharist (when it is mixed with wine in RC and some other churches), and in the Asperges and Vidi Aquam sprinklings/blessings of the congregation. Having water up near the altar for any other purpose confuses the significance of this sign, . . . .
Does it, though? I’d say having water to drink might underscore the significance of the sign, as it underscores the fundamental importance of water to life.
In addition to what @Lamb Chopped said, Jesus might also say “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’”
And Isaiah might add, “Hear, everyone who thirsts; come to the waters.”
Why is it then that even secular choir directors often don't allow their choirs to have water bottles during performances, even lengthy performances? And food is necessary for life, but most people would think it odd if a priest who didn't have a very good reason such as diabetes was eating at all during the service other than at the moment of communion.
You could also use the example of a lengthy outdoor service in blistering sunlight with no shade. Most congregations would expect that if a priest or anyone else up near the altar was wearing sunblock, that they would have applied it before the service. If the service went on long enough that the sunblock wore off and someone started to feel themselves burning, especially if that person was very prone to sunburn or had a risk or history of skin cancer, you might understand them stepping aside to apply more sunblock and wash their hands before returning. But if it is a short service, it would look very strange if someone up near the altar applied it to their face during the service, especially if the service involved anointing, as in RC baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, and anointing of the sick (if celebrated communally).
Does anyone know if, in the RCC before Vatican II or in other more catholic/high church churches before similar reforms, it would have been allowed, except in times of pressing need, for choir members or anyone else up around the altar to drink water during the service? I know that most pre-Vatican II RC masses were perfunctory rather than very reverent, and maybe some priests or even nuns who whipped children in the pews into paying attention had a flask of whiskey in their pocket that they swigged from during mass, but I can imagine there being some kind of argument that the only refreshment that should occur during the entire service should be the eucharist itself (although much fewer people received communion regularly back then!) Leaving aside what some extreme traditionalists today might say (they would be mad enough that the choir at my church is not in a loft in the back or behind a cage-like screen to the side), I wonder what the consensus was about water drinking around the altar before the wars over "modern" liturgy started (although I suppose those wars may have started in other traditions some time earlier).
I don’t judge anyone else, clergy, choir, or congregants, for having water or anything else they need for their health and wellbeing in church, especially if they are elderly, infirm, or disabled.
I also am thinking about this issue from a very traditional (though not traditionalist) catholic point of view where water is a very important sign used in baptism, the Eucharist (when it is mixed with wine in RC and some other churches), and in the Asperges and Vidi Aquam sprinklings/blessings of the congregation. Having water up near the altar for any other purpose confuses the significance of this sign, so if I am in my early 40’s and reasonably healthy, I worry that I am doing something wrong by being visible drinking from a bottle of water during the service. (It does not help that at my church the choir stalls are directly facing the congregation and are to the immediate right of the altar, whereas the altar servers and readers are sitting in stalls that face the left side of the altar and not the congregation. So I’m very visible.
But my throat feels dry and a little sore and my voice feels strained by the end of the service. I’m probably not singing in the best way and my voice isn’t terribly good. I know if I asked just about any priest within 100 miles they would all tell me it is fine to have and drink the water. But I still worry that, regardless of the valid reasons others have, I don’t have a good enough excuse and that I am doing harm to the liturgy.
As a child 50+ years ago, I remember there was always a glass of water in the pulpit for the preacher
In answer to Stonespring's musing and as a Catholic who can remember preVatican 2 times I could say that like the Orthodox( still ?) anyone going to Communion would be expected to have fasted from both food and any drink from midnight. Of course at that time people attending Mass would not always go regularly to Communion. If they did they would sometimes go to a 'distribution of Communion' at an early hour,then go for breakfast and then go to Mass.
Water bottles such as are seen everywhere these days and which may in some instances be considered as a fashion item were unknown.Certainly in Catholic churches no-one would have thought of having a drink whether they were going to Communion or not.
In the early 1950s pope Pius XII relaxed the fasting laws to three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages and one hour from any non-alcoholic drink. He also made a further pronouncement which might be considered as of importance today 'WATER DOES NOT BREAK THE EUCHARISTIC FAST.
(This was done as it was Pius XII who introduced the custom of 'evening' Mass)
Later on, I think it was Paul VI, the time of the eucharistic fast was reduced generally to one hour before the reception of Communion which is basically just before the beginning of any Sunday Mass.
Pomona's statement that coffee is really just water with a few additives
reminds me of an experience in the 1960s
I was working in a children's holiday camp in France where by chance five of the other helpers were seminarians from Normandy. At that time ,unless the parents had specifically forbidden this, the children would be taken to Sunday Mass in a local church. Breakfast in France traditionally consists of coffee in a bowl (non alcoholic liquid)and bread and jam ( solid food)
The seminarians told me that if you dipped the bread and jam into the coffee it then became a drink and one could go to Communion one hour after breakfast.
Speaking of coffee and live performances, I could not teach my 0830 class without speedball coffee (extra caffeine). Many of my first year students are also drinking caffeinated beverages. Churches should treat congregants like adults rather than infantilizing them by restricting their behaviour.
Churches should treat congregants like adults rather than infantilizing them by restricting their behaviour.
That I wouldn’t take coffee into a worship service has absolutely nothing to with not being treated like an adult, much less with being infantilized. It has to do with my adult decision that a university lecture and a church service are different in some relevant ways, and that what might be appropriate in one might not be appropriate in the other. At the very least, what I’d be comfortable doing in one I wouldn’t be comfortable doing in the other.
And as I said above, I try not to impose my views of appropriate and inappropriate on others.
Everyone draws the line separating appropriate and inappropriate somewhere. I could, of course, be wrong, but I suspect that many people who wouldn’t think twice about bring coffee into a Sunday morning service would think twice before bringing coffee into a wedding or funeral.
And all of that said, I think it’s completely appropriate for a religious tradition to set boundaries for what is or isn’t appropriate in its sacred spaces.
My point was not your choice; my point was if churches chose to make it a rule. I am sorry if I was unclear. I do not unconditionally agree with your last sentence.
It was not and is not my aim to restrict people from drinking any beverages. I was speaking about a time many years ago when it would not have entered anyone's head to drink coffee or any other beverage when being at the cinema or the theatre, while attending a lecture or indeed being at a church service.
The most one could do was to buy an ice cream or a soft drink during the interval at the 'pictures'.. Cinemas in those days, in the UK anyway ,would have a rolling programme with occasional intermissions. Nowadays a visit to the cinema often seems incomplete without drinks and snacks from the bar.
I should have perhaps mentioned that it was 50 years ago ,'de rigueur' in Scottish Presbyterian churches for old ladies to have a plentiful supply of 'sweeties' to suck on during the sermon,but drinking from a bottle,no.
My point was not your choice; my point was if churches chose to make it a rule. I am sorry if I was unclear.
No worries.
I do not unconditionally agree with your last sentence.
Can you say why?
And would your answer be different if the religious tradition in question was not your own—whether one you currently identify with or one that you once identified with and have left?
I think they have to be reasonable ex. No pork products in synagogue. Not arbitrary ex. no coffee in sanctuary. I left the Anglican church. Our church created an arbitrary rule about beverages after putting in a new carpet. Don't get me started on all the drawbacks of carpets starting from their being a trap for allergens. ( I would probably more judgmental of my own tradition than another one.)
I think they have to be reasonable ex. No pork products in synagogue. Not arbitrary ex. no coffee in sanctuary.
So is remove your shoes or cover your head when entering the temple arbitrary?
I’d submit that it’s not at all a given that “no coffee in the sanctuary” is arbitrary. In some instances (such as with the carpet in your former church), it might be. (Though frankly, I’d say “we don’t want stains on the new carpet” isn’t arbitrary, unless other food and beverages that can stain are not prohibited. It may not be a reason you find compelling, but that doesn’t make it arbitrary.) But I can imagine more substantive reasons for prohibiting or discouraging coffee in the sanctuary.
( I would probably more judgmental of my own tradition than another one.)
As would I, and I think that’s very reasonable.
Meanwhile, GIA Music used to distribute buttons that said “Carpet Bedrooms, not Churches.”
I can think of no theological reasons why coffee should be forbidden in the sanctuary of an Anglican church. All of your examples fall into the standard theology of the religions. I meant "arbitrary" as the opposite of theological. Maybe my dichotomy should have been theological vs. non-theological.
I should always know that I need to construct my argument well when chatting with a lawyer. ;^))
I can think of no theological reasons why coffee should be forbidden in the sanctuary of an Anglican church. All of your examples fall into the standard theology of the religions. I meant "arbitrary" as the opposite of theological. Maybe my dichotomy should have been theological vs. non-theological.
I should always know that I need to construct my argument well when chatting with a lawyer. ;^))
Guilty, I’m afraid.
I can think of a few theological reasons. Some Anglican churches at the high end of the candle might follow RC rules about fasting before Communion, and coffee would violate that fast.
Some might say that coffee is generally seen as something one drinks for enjoyment or even for social reasons, and that drinking it during the liturgy detracts from a sense of reverence.
Even if one doesn’t buy that reasoning, if one knows that others in the congregation do buy it, courtesy and consideration of others might provide an adequate theological reason to forgo coffee during the liturgy.
The question that I think is raised is if coffee during the liturgy is okay, what about other drinks? If it’s caffeine you’re after, is it okay to drink cola during the liturgy? Or Mt. Dew or Red Bull? Is beer okay during the liturgy, assuming a church where drinking alcohol is generally acceptable?
The reality, I think, is that a line is always going to be drawn somewhere. The question is not if there’s a line, but where the line is. And I think when it comes to beverages, water on one side of the line and all other beverages on the other side is at the least a defensible decision.
But again, I’m not saying it’s the only defensible decision.
Jesus would tell you that the liturgy was made for humanity, and not humanity for the liturgy (compare Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:1-8).
Yes indeed. But he said it about the Sabbath, not suggesting that Sabbath rules and observance should be ignored, but that they should be interpreted sensitively with regard to context and the needs of people. You can't argue from this that the liturgy is not important, only that its rules and customs should be applied sensitively. The liturgy, especially in sacramental traditions the Eucharist, is a special experience, like the Sabbath a time set aside for us to become aware of God's presence. Treating it simply like a gathering of friends, or a lecture, is to deny its basic reality. A free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments (and may I add lounging on sofas) is to my mind not helpful. Being aware of peoples' needs (for hydration, for vocal lubrication, even for some people to have more comfortable seats) can involve exceptions to the rules for good reason. Just as healing a sick person on the sabbath is, where other forms of sabbath-breaking may not be.
Being at a live performance doesn't make someone less dehydrated than at the cinema.
No, but the cinema screen isn't a person. It doesn't have feelings, and it doesn't care. I don't need to worry about respecting the cinema screen's performance.
A lecturer, the actors in a stage play, or musicians in a concert are all people. They matter. How I behave towards them matters.
Much like with the technology and church thread in Purgatory, please remember that many people will have medical issues which mean they do need to be able to eat and/or drink - although of course people need to be mindful of others.
In the majority of cases, people's medical needs can be met by eating / drinking before a lecture / concert / church service or after it.
If I had a medical need to eat or drink during a lecture, I would think that I would need to do the minimum necessary. Sips of water are minimal: water does not stain, does not smell, and does not feel like a luxury in the way that a coffee (particularly the massive expensive products sold by Starbucks) does.
Having a hot drink feels more like something that I do for the pleasure of having a drink, and less like a medical necessity. Given that I assume that I do not continuously drink coffee, then by coming in to church or a lecture with my coffee, I would be saying that I have planned and chosen to structure my day in order to drink coffee in church or in a lecture. That doesn't feel respectful to me.
As I think about it, I wonder too if it’s not just theological reasoning at play, but theological reasoning coupled with cultural assumptions and expectations, and how those interplay with theological reasoning.
For example, if we switch the question from coffee to tea, is bringing tea into the sanctuary during the liturgy going to carry different cultural meaning in, say, the US than it does in Japan, where there is a long-standing connection between tea and religion/spiritual life?
Or to use a non-beverage example, in Episcopal churches in these parts it’s the norm to maintain silence in the church prior to the service, allowing for individual prayer. In Presbyterian churches around here, conversation before the service is the norm. Both the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians can provide theological reasoning for how they do things. The difference is not that one way is theologically based while the other isn’t; it’s that cultural differences and assumptions are in interplay with theological leanings in one direction or another.
Or to use a non-beverage example, in Episcopal churches in these parts it’s the norm to maintain silence in the church prior to the service, allowing for individual prayer. In Presbyterian churches around here, conversation before the service is the norm. Both the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians can provide theological reasoning for how they do things. The difference is not that one way is theologically based while the other isn’t; it’s that cultural differences and assumptions are in interplay with theological leanings in one direction or another.
In my Episcopal church, it is the norm for people entering the church to prepare themselves for communion in silent prayer (or just to sit quietly and wait), whereas people who want to catch up with their friends (which is certainly a valuable aspect of the church community) do it in the narthex. So we aim to meet the needs of both groups of people.
Being at a live performance doesn't make someone less dehydrated than at the cinema.
No, but the cinema screen isn't a person. It doesn't have feelings, and it doesn't care. I don't need to worry about respecting the cinema screen's performance.
A lecturer, the actors in a stage play, or musicians in a concert are all people. They matter. How I behave towards them matters.
Much like with the technology and church thread in Purgatory, please remember that many people will have medical issues which mean they do need to be able to eat and/or drink - although of course people need to be mindful of others.
In the majority of cases, people's medical needs can be met by eating / drinking before a lecture / concert / church service or after it.
If I had a medical need to eat or drink during a lecture, I would think that I would need to do the minimum necessary. Sips of water are minimal: water does not stain, does not smell, and does not feel like a luxury in the way that a coffee (particularly the massive expensive products sold by Starbucks) does.
Having a hot drink feels more like something that I do for the pleasure of having a drink, and less like a medical necessity. Given that I assume that I do not continuously drink coffee, then by coming in to church or a lecture with my coffee, I would be saying that I have planned and chosen to structure my day in order to drink coffee in church or in a lecture. That doesn't feel respectful to me.
But why is it disrespectful? Surely it's more complimentary to treat a lecture or a church service as an enjoyable thing to sit through. Also, you can buy a takeaway cup of coffee from anywhere very cheaply - I think making a comment about expensive drinks is a bit weird when a bottle of water and a basic cup of coffee from say, McDonalds will cost about the same. Coffee only smells and stains if you spill it or drink from an open container. Also wrt lectures especially, the lecturer will usually have a coffee or tea with them!
Wrt @Nick Tamen 's point about other drinks - I don't see a problem with drinking a soft drink. Carbonated drinks might be a bit more risky in terms of being louder and the higher risk of spillage, but as far as I'm concerned a soft drink is a soft drink. If you're prone to a dry or sore throat, a drink containing sugar will do a better job of soothing it than plain water as sugar is a humectant.
But why is it disrespectful? Surely it's more complimentary to treat a lecture or a church service as an enjoyable thing to sit through.
This goes to the heart of the issue. IMO a church service is not a thing to "sit through." It does not require observers but participants!
To come in with one's own coffee is a social message, that the person is entering in the position of a detached observer - perhaps hoping to be educated or entertained. That is not at all my perception of worship.
The disrespect part is the expectation that everyone else is there to educate or entertain you, the detached observer. In my view of liturgy, you would not be holding up your end of the social contract of worship. It would be little different than choosing to refuse to do household chores as able, and just expecting everybody else to do the work instead, without seeing oneself as a participant.
But why is it disrespectful? Surely it's more complimentary to treat a lecture or a church service as an enjoyable thing to sit through. Also, you can buy a takeaway cup of coffee from anywhere very cheaply - I think making a comment about expensive drinks is a bit weird when a bottle of water and a basic cup of coffee from say, McDonalds will cost about the same. Coffee only smells and stains if you spill it or drink from an open container. Also wrt lectures especially, the lecturer will usually have a coffee or tea with them!
Why are you buying water? It's free from the tap. (And perhaps your experience is different, but when I see students heading to lectures with a coffee, it's usually the kind in a very large container with a long list of ingredients printed on the side, rather than a "basic cup of coffee". I think that makes the "luxury" feel worse than if it had been a small cup of basic coffee, but I still wouldn't take a regular cup of coffee.)
In my lecturing days, I wouldn't bring a hot drink with me either. It would feel disrespectful of the students. I'd have water with me in case I needed to wet my throat, because I'd be doing a lot of talking.
Why does it feel disrespectful? Tea or coffee, to me, says "social occasion". It says we're going to hang out, chat a bit, and have a nice hot drink available as a social crutch so I can sip it and enjoy without feeling like I have to fill a silence with talk.
I wouldn't show up to give an evening lecture with a glass of wine or a pint, either, for the same reason. I'd happily chat with you about anything I might lecture about over a pint, and sometimes I've chatted with people over a pint in front of a whiteboard with a dry erase marker in my other hand, but the drink puts the interaction in to a much more informal social context.
Jesus would tell you that the liturgy was made for humanity, and not humanity for the liturgy (compare Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:1-8).
Yes indeed. But he said it about the Sabbath, not suggesting that Sabbath rules and observance should be ignored, but that they should be interpreted sensitively with regard to context and the needs of people. You can't argue from this that the liturgy is not important, only that its rules and customs should be applied sensitively. The liturgy, especially in sacramental traditions the Eucharist, is a special experience, like the Sabbath a time set aside for us to become aware of God's presence. Treating it simply like a gathering of friends, or a lecture, is to deny its basic reality. A free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments (and may I add lounging on sofas) is to my mind not helpful. Being aware of peoples' needs (for hydration, for vocal lubrication, even for some people to have more comfortable seats) can involve exceptions to the rules for good reason. Just as healing a sick person on the sabbath is, where other forms of sabbath-breaking may not be.
Aaaauuuugghhhhh!!!!!
Look, we've got a poster on this very thread--the one I'm replying to, yes?--who clearly, CLEARLY has a need for water during the liturgy, and who is also experiencing severe scrupulosity--even his priest is telling him to drink water--but he can't bring himself to do it.
I tell him (and several others) that Jesus would absolutely tell him to do it. I offer biblical support, too, so he knows I'm not lying to him.
And then you come along and post something designed to undo all that good work.
Could you not stop and think of the effect your post would have on someone who clearly NEEDS that sensitivity you speak of?
The coffee thing mostly comes from the intentional relaxing of 'church' as a more formal or structured experience. Cruciform cathedrals are now theater/auditoriums. Chancels are now stages. Choirs are now 'praise teams' (read: pop-rock bands). Books are now screens. Semi-formal attire is now jeans, t-shirts and Crocs.
All in the name of 'relevancy' and coherence with 'the culture.'
Our parish priest can be a real stickler for liturgical exactitude but has a lot of leeway when it comes to bottles of water in the choir or even among non-choir members, even though Orthodox Christians are supposed to fast from midnight before receiving communion.
Some zealous types won't eat or drink after Vespers the previous evening.
He'd draw the line at tea or coffee though, which may sound arbitrary.
Other priests take a stricter view. No liquids whatsoever unless there are health concerns.
If someone's priest is extending latitude, then, as @Lamb Chopped says, I think we should accept that if we are scrupulous about these things to the point where it causes anxiety.
It's all down to context. The Baptist church I attended used to have a break mid-service for tea, coffee and doughnuts, even before communion. I wouldn't do that now but I can understand it in that particular context.
They didn't go as far as a Vineyard church in the same city that used to bring coffee and newspapers and sit around chatting on sofas and regard that as the 'service'.
It's all down to context. The Baptist church I attended used to have a break mid-service for tea, coffee and doughnuts, even before communion. I wouldn't do that now but I can understand it in that particular context.
The parish church where I grew up did much the same, minus the doughnuts, despite having a moderately Anglo-Catholic tradition.
Many people pay, on one way or another, for the water in their taps. Rain water is free.
True, although the marginal cost of a pint of water for someone on a metered supply is generally rather small. The marginal cost of a pint of water from the tap in my home is about a tenth of a cent.
Jesus would tell you that the liturgy was made for humanity, and not humanity for the liturgy (compare Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:1-8).
Yes indeed. But he said it about the Sabbath, not suggesting that Sabbath rules and observance should be ignored, but that they should be interpreted sensitively with regard to context and the needs of people. You can't argue from this that the liturgy is not important, only that its rules and customs should be applied sensitively. The liturgy, especially in sacramental traditions the Eucharist, is a special experience, like the Sabbath a time set aside for us to become aware of God's presence. Treating it simply like a gathering of friends, or a lecture, is to deny its basic reality. A free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments (and may I add lounging on sofas) is to my mind not helpful. Being aware of peoples' needs (for hydration, for vocal lubrication, even for some people to have more comfortable seats) can involve exceptions to the rules for good reason. Just as healing a sick person on the sabbath is, where other forms of sabbath-breaking may not be.
Aaaauuuugghhhhh!!!!!
Look, we've got a poster on this very thread--the one I'm replying to, yes?--who clearly, CLEARLY has a need for water during the liturgy, and who is also experiencing severe scrupulosity--even his priest is telling him to drink water--but he can't bring himself to do it.
I tell him (and several others) that Jesus would absolutely tell him to do it. I offer biblical support, too, so he knows I'm not lying to him.
And then you come along and post something designed to undo all that good work.
Could you not stop and think of the effect your post would have on someone who clearly NEEDS that sensitivity you speak of?
Huh? What I said was absolutely supportive of someone who needed not to be bound by strict rules. I don't understand your vehemence.
You have ONE sentence (2nd to last) that supports that kind of thing. All the rest of it is designed to tear down everything I said to him, and to reinforce the idea that drinking water during the liturgy is the same thing as "denying the basic reality" of the liturgy and instead creating a "free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments."
What I wrote was no such thing, but I'm not going to bother defending my post. There's no point. I wrote it to help a fellow poster in pain. What you wrote has probably destroyed any chance of that happening.
You have ONE sentence (2nd to last) that supports that kind of thing. All the rest of it is designed to tear down everything I said to him, and to reinforce the idea that drinking water during the liturgy is the same thing as "denying the basic reality" of the liturgy and instead creating a "free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments."
What I wrote was no such thing, but I'm not going to bother defending my post. There's no point. I wrote it to help a fellow poster in pain. What you wrote has probably destroyed any chance of that happening.
My apologies. I obviously missed the context of your post; I sincerely hope that no-one (that poster included) feels bound by scrupulous interpretation of any rules in any situation where it would be unhelpful. As you rightly say, 'the sabbath...' etc. And I would put the avoidance of drinking water during worship in the category of cultural expectations rather than rules, as far as most mainstream traditions go at any rate.
I was trying (clumsily) to draw attention to different approaches to worship; on the one hand, a relaxed approach, including drinking coffee and taking other refreshments during a service, which to my mind redefines what worship and liturgy actually is; and on the other hand, a view of liturgy as a particular encounter with the mystery of God in which certain behaviours are seen as generally inappropriate.
I've probably let my prejudices slip in the way I phrased the above. For some people, the casual, 'horizontal' style is all they need, and fair enough. For others, the 'vertical' emphasis on the relationship with God is vital. And it is about emphasis: both axes are needed but some need one more than another.
You have ONE sentence (2nd to last) that supports that kind of thing. All the rest of it is designed to tear down everything I said to him, and to reinforce the idea that drinking water during the liturgy is the same thing as "denying the basic reality" of the liturgy and instead creating a "free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments."
What I wrote was no such thing, but I'm not going to bother defending my post. There's no point. I wrote it to help a fellow poster in pain. What you wrote has probably destroyed any chance of that happening.
My apologies. I obviously missed the context of your post; I sincerely hope that no-one (that poster included) feels bound by scrupulous interpretation of any rules in any situation where it would be unhelpful. As you rightly say, 'the sabbath...' etc. And I would put the avoidance of drinking water during worship in the category of cultural expectations rather than rules, as far as most mainstream traditions go at any rate.
I was trying (clumsily) to draw attention to different approaches to worship; on the one hand, a relaxed approach, including drinking coffee and taking other refreshments during a service, which to my mind redefines what worship and liturgy actually is; and on the other hand, a view of liturgy as a particular encounter with the mystery of God in which certain behaviours are seen as generally inappropriate.
I've probably let my prejudices slip in the way I phrased the above. For some people, the casual, 'horizontal' style is all they need, and fair enough. For others, the 'vertical' emphasis on the relationship with God is vital. And it is about emphasis: both axes are needed but some need one more than another.
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
I could tell you were making some very worthwhile points, and that totally helps the discussion along. I simply had pastoral concerns about the person who had disclosed issues earlier.
In any case, my apologies too, because I probably shouldn't have been so vehement.
You might find interesting a conflict that developed between my husband and me over the question of where you set down Bibles during a college Bible study (yes, this was 40 years ago).
The setting was one of those college Bible study groups where everybody shows up in a room--here, the small chapel--and sits in a circle, more or less, on the carpet, with their Bibles in front of them or next to them on the floor. This upset my future husband a great deal, as in his culture, nobody would dream of setting a sacred book on the floor. We had the hardest time explaining to him that no disrespect was intended, it was rather a matter of different manners. And here's where I'm struggling to articulate the difference.
For him, putting the Bible on the floor was all about disrespect. No two ways about it, in all places and in all times that would be the meaning.l
But for us, we were working with a set of norms based on intimacy. We would normally never lay a Bible on the floor (say, during public Sunday morning worship). It's not only unhandy but it feels a bit off.
But in the intimate setting of a dozen friends worshipping as a group, where our own bodies were on the floor, along with water bottles, glasses, etc., putting the Bible there didn't seem problematic to us. It seemed to be one more piece of intimate behavior.
Can you see what I'm getting at, and maybe help me phrase it more clearly? I'm struggling.
Can you see what I'm getting at, and maybe help me phrase it more clearly? I'm struggling.
I think you’re getting at a point a number of us have raised: Context and cultural assumptions matter. What might be inappropriate or even disrespectful in one context or given some cultural assumptions might not be inappropriate or disrespectful in a different context or given different cultural assumptions.
When it comes to books (and what they represent), I think there are multiple overlapping cultures involved. From one perspective, in the case of sacred texts, it's the words that are sacred, not the ink, nor the paper on which it's printed nor the cardboard in which the leaves are bound.
Also, as has been pointed out, I see a significant amount of overlap between this thread and the technology in worship thread in Purgatory.
From one perspective, in the case of sacred texts, it's the words that are sacred, not the ink, or the paper on which it's printed or the cardboard in which the leaves are bound.
But even from that perspective, treating the physical book with respect might be seen as symbolic of treating the words with respect. Similarly, treating the physical book casually may be seen as symbolizing treating the words casually.
Well, yes - symbolism is the arbitrary assignment of meaning to objects or actions, so that's true by definition.
In different cultures, the same symbol can mean different things. Or not be a symbol at all. Either way, this is something we are taught, often in childhood, which is why some actions just "seem" right (or wrong).
But why is it disrespectful? Surely it's more complimentary to treat a lecture or a church service as an enjoyable thing to sit through. Also, you can buy a takeaway cup of coffee from anywhere very cheaply - I think making a comment about expensive drinks is a bit weird when a bottle of water and a basic cup of coffee from say, McDonalds will cost about the same. Coffee only smells and stains if you spill it or drink from an open container. Also wrt lectures especially, the lecturer will usually have a coffee or tea with them!
Why are you buying water? It's free from the tap. (And perhaps your experience is different, but when I see students heading to lectures with a coffee, it's usually the kind in a very large container with a long list of ingredients printed on the side, rather than a "basic cup of coffee". I think that makes the "luxury" feel worse than if it had been a small cup of basic coffee, but I still wouldn't take a regular cup of coffee.)
In my lecturing days, I wouldn't bring a hot drink with me either. It would feel disrespectful of the students. I'd have water with me in case I needed to wet my throat, because I'd be doing a lot of talking.
Why does it feel disrespectful? Tea or coffee, to me, says "social occasion". It says we're going to hang out, chat a bit, and have a nice hot drink available as a social crutch so I can sip it and enjoy without feeling like I have to fill a silence with talk.
I wouldn't show up to give an evening lecture with a glass of wine or a pint, either, for the same reason. I'd happily chat with you about anything I might lecture about over a pint, and sometimes I've chatted with people over a pint in front of a whiteboard with a dry erase marker in my other hand, but the drink puts the interaction in to a much more informal social context.
Not everyone lives in an area where the tap water is nice to drink.
If someone is drinking coffee alone it's clearly not a social occasion.
The coffee thing mostly comes from the intentional relaxing of 'church' as a more formal or structured experience. Cruciform cathedrals are now theater/auditoriums. Chancels are now stages. Choirs are now 'praise teams' (read: pop-rock bands). Books are now screens. Semi-formal attire is now jeans, t-shirts and Crocs.
All in the name of 'relevancy' and coherence with 'the culture.'
This is culture war bullshit. Lots of people drink coffee in churches that are more formal, and less formal church styles aren't somehow lesser forms of church. And as someone who wears Crocs for disability reasons, fuck off with your judgementalism over what other people wear.
But why is it disrespectful? Surely it's more complimentary to treat a lecture or a church service as an enjoyable thing to sit through.
This goes to the heart of the issue. IMO a church service is not a thing to "sit through." It does not require observers but participants!
To come in with one's own coffee is a social message, that the person is entering in the position of a detached observer - perhaps hoping to be educated or entertained. That is not at all my perception of worship.
The disrespect part is the expectation that everyone else is there to educate or entertain you, the detached observer. In my view of liturgy, you would not be holding up your end of the social contract of worship. It would be little different than choosing to refuse to do household chores as able, and just expecting everybody else to do the work instead, without seeing oneself as a participant.
You have no idea what my attitude is or isn't within worship services. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but your post comes across as being incredibly rude and judgemental. Aside from anything else, comparing worship to chores seems like a poor comparison that both compares worship to something unpleasant to be endured (as I think most people would consider chores to be) and also suggests that a failure to worship "properly" has some kind of material outcome comparable to eg not doing laundry when it demonstrably does not. People should do their laundry so that they have clean clothes to wear - that's the point of doing it. There isn't a comparable outcome for joining in with worship; someone there to merely observe isn't actually harming anyone. Why do you think that the presence of an observer is so harmful?
A university lecture IS there to educate you. That is its function. However, let's face it - a 9am Monday morning lecture is also something to endure. For some of us with religious trauma, a church service is something to endure. I think most churches would prefer that we attend rather than not attend. What your comment says to me is "if you can't join in enthusiastically you shouldn't bother attending", which does not exactly make me want to try more.
@Leorning Cniht I'm interested to know how you feel wrt caffeinated energy drinks vs coffee or tea. Is an energy drink less coded to you as being for socialising than coffee or tea? In a perfect world nobody would have any trouble staying awake during a lecture or indeed a sermon, but it's not a perfect world and human levels of sleepiness in exist in 9am lectures and 10am services.
I'm surprised that you feel that bringing in coffee as a lecturer would be disrespectful to students, since teachers have been drinking coffee in the classroom for decades - ime the habit of students bringing coffee into the lecture hall is, like calling teaching staff by their first names, a sign that those in the classroom/lecture hall are fellow adults. Certainly when I was in 6th Form it was normal and encouraged by teachers to bring drinks into class, including coffee/hot drinks - they would rather us be hydrated and awake than the reverse. I see more relaxed church services with coffee and refreshments before/during the service as similarly being about breaking down clergy vs congregation barriers.
Comments
Prostatism awaits you😜
I also am thinking about this issue from a very traditional (though not traditionalist) catholic point of view where water is a very important sign used in baptism, the Eucharist (when it is mixed with wine in RC and some other churches), and in the Asperges and Vidi Aquam sprinklings/blessings of the congregation. Having water up near the altar for any other purpose confuses the significance of this sign, so if I am in my early 40’s and reasonably healthy, I worry that I am doing something wrong by being visible drinking from a bottle of water during the service. (It does not help that at my church the choir stalls are directly facing the congregation and are to the immediate right of the altar, whereas the altar servers and readers are sitting in stalls that face the left side of the altar and not the congregation. So I’m very visible.
But my throat feels dry and a little sore and my voice feels strained by the end of the service. I’m probably not singing in the best way and my voice isn’t terribly good. I know if I asked just about any priest within 100 miles they would all tell me it is fine to have and drink the water. But I still worry that, regardless of the valid reasons others have, I don’t have a good enough excuse and that I am doing harm to the liturgy.
Does it, though? I’d say having water to drink might underscore the significance of the sign, as it underscores the fundamental importance of water to life.
In addition to what @Lamb Chopped said, Jesus might also say “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’”
And Isaiah might add, “Hear, everyone who thirsts; come to the waters.”
You could also use the example of a lengthy outdoor service in blistering sunlight with no shade. Most congregations would expect that if a priest or anyone else up near the altar was wearing sunblock, that they would have applied it before the service. If the service went on long enough that the sunblock wore off and someone started to feel themselves burning, especially if that person was very prone to sunburn or had a risk or history of skin cancer, you might understand them stepping aside to apply more sunblock and wash their hands before returning. But if it is a short service, it would look very strange if someone up near the altar applied it to their face during the service, especially if the service involved anointing, as in RC baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, and anointing of the sick (if celebrated communally).
Does anyone know if, in the RCC before Vatican II or in other more catholic/high church churches before similar reforms, it would have been allowed, except in times of pressing need, for choir members or anyone else up around the altar to drink water during the service? I know that most pre-Vatican II RC masses were perfunctory rather than very reverent, and maybe some priests or even nuns who whipped children in the pews into paying attention had a flask of whiskey in their pocket that they swigged from during mass, but I can imagine there being some kind of argument that the only refreshment that should occur during the entire service should be the eucharist itself (although much fewer people received communion regularly back then!) Leaving aside what some extreme traditionalists today might say (they would be mad enough that the choir at my church is not in a loft in the back or behind a cage-like screen to the side), I wonder what the consensus was about water drinking around the altar before the wars over "modern" liturgy started (although I suppose those wars may have started in other traditions some time earlier).
As a child 50+ years ago, I remember there was always a glass of water in the pulpit for the preacher
Water bottles such as are seen everywhere these days and which may in some instances be considered as a fashion item were unknown.Certainly in Catholic churches no-one would have thought of having a drink whether they were going to Communion or not.
In the early 1950s pope Pius XII relaxed the fasting laws to three hours from solid food and alcoholic beverages and one hour from any non-alcoholic drink. He also made a further pronouncement which might be considered as of importance today 'WATER DOES NOT BREAK THE EUCHARISTIC FAST.
(This was done as it was Pius XII who introduced the custom of 'evening' Mass)
Later on, I think it was Paul VI, the time of the eucharistic fast was reduced generally to one hour before the reception of Communion which is basically just before the beginning of any Sunday Mass.
Pomona's statement that coffee is really just water with a few additives
reminds me of an experience in the 1960s
I was working in a children's holiday camp in France where by chance five of the other helpers were seminarians from Normandy. At that time ,unless the parents had specifically forbidden this, the children would be taken to Sunday Mass in a local church. Breakfast in France traditionally consists of coffee in a bowl (non alcoholic liquid)and bread and jam ( solid food)
The seminarians told me that if you dipped the bread and jam into the coffee it then became a drink and one could go to Communion one hour after breakfast.
And as I said above, I try not to impose my views of appropriate and inappropriate on others.
Everyone draws the line separating appropriate and inappropriate somewhere. I could, of course, be wrong, but I suspect that many people who wouldn’t think twice about bring coffee into a Sunday morning service would think twice before bringing coffee into a wedding or funeral.
And all of that said, I think it’s completely appropriate for a religious tradition to set boundaries for what is or isn’t appropriate in its sacred spaces.
The most one could do was to buy an ice cream or a soft drink during the interval at the 'pictures'.. Cinemas in those days, in the UK anyway ,would have a rolling programme with occasional intermissions. Nowadays a visit to the cinema often seems incomplete without drinks and snacks from the bar.
I should have perhaps mentioned that it was 50 years ago ,'de rigueur' in Scottish Presbyterian churches for old ladies to have a plentiful supply of 'sweeties' to suck on during the sermon,but drinking from a bottle,no.
Can you say why?
And would your answer be different if the religious tradition in question was not your own—whether one you currently identify with or one that you once identified with and have left?
I’d submit that it’s not at all a given that “no coffee in the sanctuary” is arbitrary. In some instances (such as with the carpet in your former church), it might be. (Though frankly, I’d say “we don’t want stains on the new carpet” isn’t arbitrary, unless other food and beverages that can stain are not prohibited. It may not be a reason you find compelling, but that doesn’t make it arbitrary.) But I can imagine more substantive reasons for prohibiting or discouraging coffee in the sanctuary.
As would I, and I think that’s very reasonable.
Meanwhile, GIA Music used to distribute buttons that said “Carpet Bedrooms, not Churches.”
I should always know that I need to construct my argument well when chatting with a lawyer. ;^))
I can think of a few theological reasons. Some Anglican churches at the high end of the candle might follow RC rules about fasting before Communion, and coffee would violate that fast.
Some might say that coffee is generally seen as something one drinks for enjoyment or even for social reasons, and that drinking it during the liturgy detracts from a sense of reverence.
Even if one doesn’t buy that reasoning, if one knows that others in the congregation do buy it, courtesy and consideration of others might provide an adequate theological reason to forgo coffee during the liturgy.
The question that I think is raised is if coffee during the liturgy is okay, what about other drinks? If it’s caffeine you’re after, is it okay to drink cola during the liturgy? Or Mt. Dew or Red Bull? Is beer okay during the liturgy, assuming a church where drinking alcohol is generally acceptable?
The reality, I think, is that a line is always going to be drawn somewhere. The question is not if there’s a line, but where the line is. And I think when it comes to beverages, water on one side of the line and all other beverages on the other side is at the least a defensible decision.
But again, I’m not saying it’s the only defensible decision.
Yes indeed. But he said it about the Sabbath, not suggesting that Sabbath rules and observance should be ignored, but that they should be interpreted sensitively with regard to context and the needs of people. You can't argue from this that the liturgy is not important, only that its rules and customs should be applied sensitively. The liturgy, especially in sacramental traditions the Eucharist, is a special experience, like the Sabbath a time set aside for us to become aware of God's presence. Treating it simply like a gathering of friends, or a lecture, is to deny its basic reality. A free-for-all culture of bringing in refreshments (and may I add lounging on sofas) is to my mind not helpful. Being aware of peoples' needs (for hydration, for vocal lubrication, even for some people to have more comfortable seats) can involve exceptions to the rules for good reason. Just as healing a sick person on the sabbath is, where other forms of sabbath-breaking may not be.
No, but the cinema screen isn't a person. It doesn't have feelings, and it doesn't care. I don't need to worry about respecting the cinema screen's performance.
A lecturer, the actors in a stage play, or musicians in a concert are all people. They matter. How I behave towards them matters.
In the majority of cases, people's medical needs can be met by eating / drinking before a lecture / concert / church service or after it.
If I had a medical need to eat or drink during a lecture, I would think that I would need to do the minimum necessary. Sips of water are minimal: water does not stain, does not smell, and does not feel like a luxury in the way that a coffee (particularly the massive expensive products sold by Starbucks) does.
Having a hot drink feels more like something that I do for the pleasure of having a drink, and less like a medical necessity. Given that I assume that I do not continuously drink coffee, then by coming in to church or a lecture with my coffee, I would be saying that I have planned and chosen to structure my day in order to drink coffee in church or in a lecture. That doesn't feel respectful to me.
For example, if we switch the question from coffee to tea, is bringing tea into the sanctuary during the liturgy going to carry different cultural meaning in, say, the US than it does in Japan, where there is a long-standing connection between tea and religion/spiritual life?
Or to use a non-beverage example, in Episcopal churches in these parts it’s the norm to maintain silence in the church prior to the service, allowing for individual prayer. In Presbyterian churches around here, conversation before the service is the norm. Both the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians can provide theological reasoning for how they do things. The difference is not that one way is theologically based while the other isn’t; it’s that cultural differences and assumptions are in interplay with theological leanings in one direction or another.
In my Episcopal church, it is the norm for people entering the church to prepare themselves for communion in silent prayer (or just to sit quietly and wait), whereas people who want to catch up with their friends (which is certainly a valuable aspect of the church community) do it in the narthex. So we aim to meet the needs of both groups of people.
But why is it disrespectful? Surely it's more complimentary to treat a lecture or a church service as an enjoyable thing to sit through. Also, you can buy a takeaway cup of coffee from anywhere very cheaply - I think making a comment about expensive drinks is a bit weird when a bottle of water and a basic cup of coffee from say, McDonalds will cost about the same. Coffee only smells and stains if you spill it or drink from an open container. Also wrt lectures especially, the lecturer will usually have a coffee or tea with them!
Wrt @Nick Tamen 's point about other drinks - I don't see a problem with drinking a soft drink. Carbonated drinks might be a bit more risky in terms of being louder and the higher risk of spillage, but as far as I'm concerned a soft drink is a soft drink. If you're prone to a dry or sore throat, a drink containing sugar will do a better job of soothing it than plain water as sugar is a humectant.
This goes to the heart of the issue. IMO a church service is not a thing to "sit through." It does not require observers but participants!
To come in with one's own coffee is a social message, that the person is entering in the position of a detached observer - perhaps hoping to be educated or entertained. That is not at all my perception of worship.
The disrespect part is the expectation that everyone else is there to educate or entertain you, the detached observer. In my view of liturgy, you would not be holding up your end of the social contract of worship. It would be little different than choosing to refuse to do household chores as able, and just expecting everybody else to do the work instead, without seeing oneself as a participant.
Why are you buying water? It's free from the tap. (And perhaps your experience is different, but when I see students heading to lectures with a coffee, it's usually the kind in a very large container with a long list of ingredients printed on the side, rather than a "basic cup of coffee". I think that makes the "luxury" feel worse than if it had been a small cup of basic coffee, but I still wouldn't take a regular cup of coffee.)
In my lecturing days, I wouldn't bring a hot drink with me either. It would feel disrespectful of the students. I'd have water with me in case I needed to wet my throat, because I'd be doing a lot of talking.
Why does it feel disrespectful? Tea or coffee, to me, says "social occasion". It says we're going to hang out, chat a bit, and have a nice hot drink available as a social crutch so I can sip it and enjoy without feeling like I have to fill a silence with talk.
I wouldn't show up to give an evening lecture with a glass of wine or a pint, either, for the same reason. I'd happily chat with you about anything I might lecture about over a pint, and sometimes I've chatted with people over a pint in front of a whiteboard with a dry erase marker in my other hand, but the drink puts the interaction in to a much more informal social context.
Aaaauuuugghhhhh!!!!!
Look, we've got a poster on this very thread--the one I'm replying to, yes?--who clearly, CLEARLY has a need for water during the liturgy, and who is also experiencing severe scrupulosity--even his priest is telling him to drink water--but he can't bring himself to do it.
I tell him (and several others) that Jesus would absolutely tell him to do it. I offer biblical support, too, so he knows I'm not lying to him.
And then you come along and post something designed to undo all that good work.
Could you not stop and think of the effect your post would have on someone who clearly NEEDS that sensitivity you speak of?
All in the name of 'relevancy' and coherence with 'the culture.'
Our parish priest can be a real stickler for liturgical exactitude but has a lot of leeway when it comes to bottles of water in the choir or even among non-choir members, even though Orthodox Christians are supposed to fast from midnight before receiving communion.
Some zealous types won't eat or drink after Vespers the previous evening.
He'd draw the line at tea or coffee though, which may sound arbitrary.
Other priests take a stricter view. No liquids whatsoever unless there are health concerns.
If someone's priest is extending latitude, then, as @Lamb Chopped says, I think we should accept that if we are scrupulous about these things to the point where it causes anxiety.
It's all down to context. The Baptist church I attended used to have a break mid-service for tea, coffee and doughnuts, even before communion. I wouldn't do that now but I can understand it in that particular context.
They didn't go as far as a Vineyard church in the same city that used to bring coffee and newspapers and sit around chatting on sofas and regard that as the 'service'.
But again, context, context, context.
The parish church where I grew up did much the same, minus the doughnuts, despite having a moderately Anglo-Catholic tradition.
True, although the marginal cost of a pint of water for someone on a metered supply is generally rather small. The marginal cost of a pint of water from the tap in my home is about a tenth of a cent.
Huh? What I said was absolutely supportive of someone who needed not to be bound by strict rules. I don't understand your vehemence.
What I wrote was no such thing, but I'm not going to bother defending my post. There's no point. I wrote it to help a fellow poster in pain. What you wrote has probably destroyed any chance of that happening.
My apologies. I obviously missed the context of your post; I sincerely hope that no-one (that poster included) feels bound by scrupulous interpretation of any rules in any situation where it would be unhelpful. As you rightly say, 'the sabbath...' etc. And I would put the avoidance of drinking water during worship in the category of cultural expectations rather than rules, as far as most mainstream traditions go at any rate.
I was trying (clumsily) to draw attention to different approaches to worship; on the one hand, a relaxed approach, including drinking coffee and taking other refreshments during a service, which to my mind redefines what worship and liturgy actually is; and on the other hand, a view of liturgy as a particular encounter with the mystery of God in which certain behaviours are seen as generally inappropriate.
I've probably let my prejudices slip in the way I phrased the above. For some people, the casual, 'horizontal' style is all they need, and fair enough. For others, the 'vertical' emphasis on the relationship with God is vital. And it is about emphasis: both axes are needed but some need one more than another.
Thanks, I really appreciate that.
I could tell you were making some very worthwhile points, and that totally helps the discussion along. I simply had pastoral concerns about the person who had disclosed issues earlier.
In any case, my apologies too, because I probably shouldn't have been so vehement.
In terms of moving the discussion along, then...
Ah, I'd better put it in the next post.
The setting was one of those college Bible study groups where everybody shows up in a room--here, the small chapel--and sits in a circle, more or less, on the carpet, with their Bibles in front of them or next to them on the floor. This upset my future husband a great deal, as in his culture, nobody would dream of setting a sacred book on the floor. We had the hardest time explaining to him that no disrespect was intended, it was rather a matter of different manners. And here's where I'm struggling to articulate the difference.
For him, putting the Bible on the floor was all about disrespect. No two ways about it, in all places and in all times that would be the meaning.l
But for us, we were working with a set of norms based on intimacy. We would normally never lay a Bible on the floor (say, during public Sunday morning worship). It's not only unhandy but it feels a bit off.
But in the intimate setting of a dozen friends worshipping as a group, where our own bodies were on the floor, along with water bottles, glasses, etc., putting the Bible there didn't seem problematic to us. It seemed to be one more piece of intimate behavior.
Can you see what I'm getting at, and maybe help me phrase it more clearly? I'm struggling.
Also, as has been pointed out, I see a significant amount of overlap between this thread and the technology in worship thread in Purgatory.
In different cultures, the same symbol can mean different things. Or not be a symbol at all. Either way, this is something we are taught, often in childhood, which is why some actions just "seem" right (or wrong).
Not everyone lives in an area where the tap water is nice to drink.
If someone is drinking coffee alone it's clearly not a social occasion.
This is culture war bullshit. Lots of people drink coffee in churches that are more formal, and less formal church styles aren't somehow lesser forms of church. And as someone who wears Crocs for disability reasons, fuck off with your judgementalism over what other people wear.
This is all getting rather heated. If you have an argument with someone, please take it to Hell
Spike
Eccles Host
You have no idea what my attitude is or isn't within worship services. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but your post comes across as being incredibly rude and judgemental. Aside from anything else, comparing worship to chores seems like a poor comparison that both compares worship to something unpleasant to be endured (as I think most people would consider chores to be) and also suggests that a failure to worship "properly" has some kind of material outcome comparable to eg not doing laundry when it demonstrably does not. People should do their laundry so that they have clean clothes to wear - that's the point of doing it. There isn't a comparable outcome for joining in with worship; someone there to merely observe isn't actually harming anyone. Why do you think that the presence of an observer is so harmful?
A university lecture IS there to educate you. That is its function. However, let's face it - a 9am Monday morning lecture is also something to endure. For some of us with religious trauma, a church service is something to endure. I think most churches would prefer that we attend rather than not attend. What your comment says to me is "if you can't join in enthusiastically you shouldn't bother attending", which does not exactly make me want to try more.
I’m assuming you’ve crossposted with my previous hosting comment.
Spike
Eccles Host
I did, sorry.
I'm surprised that you feel that bringing in coffee as a lecturer would be disrespectful to students, since teachers have been drinking coffee in the classroom for decades - ime the habit of students bringing coffee into the lecture hall is, like calling teaching staff by their first names, a sign that those in the classroom/lecture hall are fellow adults. Certainly when I was in 6th Form it was normal and encouraged by teachers to bring drinks into class, including coffee/hot drinks - they would rather us be hydrated and awake than the reverse. I see more relaxed church services with coffee and refreshments before/during the service as similarly being about breaking down clergy vs congregation barriers.