Liturgy

[JasonV]

Myself, I prefer a quiet, contemplative service with a'capella singing. I would love if the Fr. said "During the passing of the peace extend your welcome to your immediate neighbor". This would cut down the amount of bustling going on and provide more time to prepare for the eucharist.

To be honest, a service modeled on the quaker concept would work for me, plenty of time to just sit in God's presence.

In the Liberal Rite used by my church, the Peace is extended from the Priest to the clergy at the altar, and from them to the congregation. Essentially you only give peace to your immediate neighbor so that they can pass it on to their neighbor until it reaches the last person in the back.

The person in the back then stands up and says: "The peace of the Lord be always with you!," to which the whole church replies: "And with thy spirit."

 

[Timothy]

We have to fight to get our congregation to sit down after the peace. I like it that way.

A friendly vicar likes to tell the story of a parish he was serving in as a curate. When it came to the peace, a member of the congregation noticed a friend that he'd had a fight with wasn't in church to share the peace with. He left the church, found the member they made their peace and came back in time to receive the Sacrament together. That's what the Peace is all about.

 

[AngCath]

Where I attend, the whole congregation gets up and the peace is extended between everyone. Of course, the average attendance of the service is about 35 people so it works fine

 

[Albion]

Fortunately, the passing of the Peace is not in the BCP, so our church doesn't engage in it. The many problems that it creates in today's society (while not denying that some good outcomes can occasionally take place as Sir Timothy described) are avoided. I'm glad for that, although I understand why those who like the practice do.

 

[MKJ]

I think that's inaccurate to say, Dunstan. The criticisms of the 1979 changes were overwhelmingly these: that it

1) changed its theology,
2) became something other than "Common" Prayer thanks to the many different rites, settings, and alternative prayers provided, and
3) oversimplified the language so that it lost much of its renowed power and elegance.

In other words, it's not for returning to the style of an earlier period in Church history that the 1979 book was and is criticicized.

Well, I think it is criticized for this, at least in two ways.

The first is that earlier is better, or more authentic, is a suspect principle.

The second is that the "truths" discovered about early Church liturgies were often misunderstood, taken out of context, and applied in ways that no longer make sense. This was partly a result of the movement toward recovering and studying such early liturgies being in it's infancy, even when it's discoveries were being incorporated into the new liturgies. It was likely partly as a result of people with a particular agenda or view of the value of the Anglican tradition looking for what they wanted to find. And partly because the Early Church was early, and thus had not fully developed it's theology on any number of issues (which relates to earlier being a suspect principle.)

Now, I think that the idea that there was a theological change accounts for people changing how they understood liturgy (and why some were dissatisfied with the old one) and allowing this historical idea to take hold, and it also accounts for why some were so eager to find certain kinds of evidence in the early liturgies.

But even just looked at historically, there are a lot of problems with saying the modern liturgies are more historical. They are more of a reconstruction of some historical fragments from various times and places formed by a modern sensibility. I think in that sense they are actually less historical, because what was meaningful in the old rights it draws from has been been used to serve a thoroughly modern sensibility.

 

[Albion]

Well, I think it is criticized for this, at least in two ways.

The first is that earlier is better, or more authentic, is a suspect principle.

The second is that the "truths" discovered about early Church liturgies were often misunderstood, taken out of context, and applied in ways that no longer make sense. This was partly a result of the movement toward recovering and studying such early liturgies being in it's infancy, even when it's discoveries were being incorporated into the new liturgies. It was likely partly as a result of people with a particular agenda or view of the value of the Anglican tradition looking for what they wanted to find. And partly because the Early Church was early, and thus had not fully developed it's theology on any number of issues (which relates to earlier being a suspect principle.)

Now, I think that the idea that there was a theological change accounts for people changing how they understood liturgy (and why some were dissatisfied with the old one) and allowing this historical idea to take hold, and it also accounts for why some were so eager to find certain kinds of evidence in the early liturgies.

But even just looked at historically, there are a lot of problems with saying the modern liturgies are more historical. They are more of a reconstruction of some historical fragments from various times and places formed by a modern sensibility. I think in that sense they are actually less historical, because what was meaningful in the old rights it draws from has been been used to serve a thoroughly modern sensibility.

I don't know how to respond to that, or if there's any reason to. But I'll just "chip in" that it's been shown lately that many of the notions that the small number of people who inspired the Liturgical Reform Movement pushed were dead wrong.

 

[TomUK]

We have to fight to get our congregation to sit down after the peace. I like it that way.

A friendly vicar likes to tell the story of a parish he was serving in as a curate. When it came to the peace, a member of the congregation noticed a friend that he'd had a fight with wasn't in church to share the peace with. He left the church, found the member they made their peace and came back in time to receive the Sacrament together. That's what the Peace is all about.

Nice story. I do always worry though about how newcomers feel about it all. It must require such courage for them to come to church for the first time - often on their own - and from my experience what the majority want is simply the space to see what church is about and try and encounter God. In my opinion it's one of the biggest problems in evangelical churches today - they go to such efforts to get them in, but the second they arrive they're being told to pray with the person next to them, share their testimony with the person next to them or shake the hand of everyone in the church without an explanation why they are supposed to do it. It scares me how many people must have been put off church in this way.

 

[scotsdoc54]

Sure. There are some other churches that occasionally have those terms used in connection with them. Lutherans would be the most likely. I've even heard it used--very rarely--about Presbyterian churches. But you said, "I do get a bit irritated sometimes at "low church" Protestant services." Am I wrong to think that the word Lutheran doesn't appear there and that you might have been referring to Protestant churches generally? I don't think so, but I'll spare you the emoticon.

No, you're right. I was referring to Protestants generally. Since I've heard the "low church" description used with Lutherans (and you're right, now that I think about it, I've heard it used with Presbyterian services as well), I just used it as a short hand description of a particular strain of worship style in greater Protestantism. It was much easier to say that instead of "churches who de-emphasize the Eucharist, reject the use of sacramental actions in worship, and over-emphasize the sermon". I was just trying to be efficient with my words.

 

[Timothy]

It was much easier to say that instead of "churches who de-emphasize the Eucharist, reject the use of sacramental actions in worship, and over-emphasize the sermon"

The easiest adjective (at least in the CofE) is to use 'growing'. All the others are shrinking.

 

[Yardstick]

I commonly use low church as a description of the general worship style of protestant christianity. It provides a much better description than growing. A term which isn't nearly as neutral a term as low church.

 

[Albion]

I commonly use low church as a description of the general worship style of protestant christianity. It provides a much better description than growing. A term which isn't nearly as neutral a term as low church.

To me, that's a bit confusing since the religious world uses the term in another sense. But that aside, I am wondering how you define "low church" as you use it. We know that the term normally indicates a lesser degree of ceremony, but not "non-liturgical" worship or an absence of ritual. You have to be using it to mean something else. And what, then, is "high church?"

 

[Healed_IHS]

The easiest adjective (at least in the CofE) is to use 'growing'. All the others are shrinking.

I haven't heard this. Do you happen to have a source?

 

[ebia]

The easiest adjective (at least in the CofE) is to use 'growing'. All the others are shrinking.

Do you have statistics to back this up?

Lower church congregations might tend to be the ones that are growing because they tend to be more mission oriented, but the statistics from Bob Jackson & Robert Warren seem to defy the simplistic position that low churchs all grow and high churchs all shrinkage. Rather it is other factors that define that, that might correlate to some extent with churchmanship.

 

[Timothy]

Do you have statistics to back this up?

Lower church congregations might tend to be the ones that are growing because they tend to be more mission oriented, but the statistics from Bob Jackson & Robert Warren seem to defy the simplistic position that low churchs all grow and high churchs all shrinkage. Rather it is other factors that define that, that might correlate to some extent with churchmanship.

Unfortunately both my books on this are sitting somewhere back home and I can't remember what they're called, off-hand. I can tell you from official statistics from one local diocese (which aren't published online) that it is the ten major evangelical churches who have a significant enough congregation to pay parish share (which is calculated both by congregation size and annual income) to support other clergy than their own. Some of the broad to high churches just about pay enough to support their clergy, but the majority are relying on handouts from the evangelicals. That's pretty telling if you ask me.

 

[JasonV]

Unfortunately both my books on this are sitting somewhere back home and I can't remember what they're called, off-hand. I can tell you from official statistics from one local diocese (which aren't published online) that it is the ten major evangelical churches who have a significant enough congregation to pay parish share (which is calculated both by congregation size and annual income) to support other clergy than their own. Some of the broad to high churches just about pay enough to support their clergy, but the majority are relying on handouts from the evangelicals. That's pretty telling if you ask me.

In the US, the Eastern Orthodox churches are experiencing tremendous growth, and I think we can all agree they are "high church".

Certainly not all church growth can be attributed to an evangelical style of Christianity.

 

[ebia]

Unfortunately both my books on this are sitting somewhere back home

I can relate to that - mine are all on loan.

and I can't remember what they're called, off-hand. I can tell you from official statistics from one local diocese (which aren't published online) that it is the ten major evangelical churches who have a significant enough congregation to pay parish share (which is calculated both by congregation size and annual income) to support other clergy than their own. Some of the broad to high churches just about pay enough to support their clergy, but the majority are relying on handouts from the evangelicals. That's pretty telling if you ask me.

I can believe that, and it is telling, but I'm not sure it tells exactly the same story as 'growth'. Big churches aren't necessarly the ones that are growing, and Evangelicals do tend to be better at putting money in the plate.

I'm sure there is some truth in what you say - I wouldn't be surprised at some correlation between churchmanship and growth, but I don't think you can go as far as to equate the two. Rather Evangelical churches have tended to be more mission oriented than other Anglican traditions over the last few decades.

 

[MKJ]

In the US, the Eastern Orthodox churches are experiencing tremendous growth, and I think we can all agree they are "high church".

Certainly not all church growth can be attributed to an evangelical style of Christianity.

They do have something in common with some of the evangelical churches though - they aren't airy-fairy and they require a lot of commitment. And they are in many ways quite conservative.

They can also show a very clear connection to historical Christianity doctrinally, which is something evangelical churches also try to claim.

There seem to be quite a few individual Anglicans defecting to the OC, and a few whole congregations have too I think.

 

[Albion]

I have the feeling that almost everyone here is correct in his own way, even if there appear to be sharp differences of opinion on some of this stuff.

It is difficult to be a moderate, no matter what the area of concern. Political moderates have a difficult road because people want no apparent wishy-washiness. Moderates in dress and clothing seem undistinguished. And so it goes. Moderates in religion don't fare as well as the extremes, either.

At one time, Presbyterians, Methodists, and other such Protestants that we now call "mainstream" or "mainline" were defiantly different from Roman Catholics for being firmly Bible-centered. But today, many of these churches are weakening because they seem staid, ordinary, etc. There are surely other churches that are further out on whatever extreme we can name, whether in worship style, belief system, organization, or whatever it might be.

In the future, I expect that Roman Catholicism will grow, Eastern Orthodoxy will grow...and the non-denominational churches--if not the "megachurches" exactly--will also grow. Probably more than the former group.

And why is that?

Because the one extreme offers drama, mystery, pageantry, all of which can be thought to be deeply religious by some people. And the other extreme offers belief and worship that is, in the opinion or others, untainted by adornments and distractions.

And the moderates, who at one time in their past didn't seem like moderates at all? They will be progressively squeezed out. IOW, there is not a trend towards one particular end of the spectrum or the other, but towards both simultaneously.