Presenting Liturgy

seeking_perfection said:

How is the liturgy presented at the services in your churches? Do you use authorised printed versions, your own printed copies, projections?

How do your main congregation find your methods?

What do newcomers think of your methods? Do they find it easy to read and to keep up with? More importantly, do you think they are able to understand what is being done and why each part of the liturgy is required?

Linked with this, what are your opinions on liturgical innovation? Do people switch off because the liturgy itself is wrong or because they don't understand it/the way it is presented is wrong?

I have a theory that people think liturgy needs to be simplified so that un-churched people can understand it but that in simplifying they are watering it down. What is needed is for more effort to be put into explaining the liturgy in the first place. Not sure if this is actually the case however. I would be very interested in your responses and the reasoning behind them.

Click to expand...

On laminated cards produced in the parish from the official software. APBA (let alone the CW book) is way to difficult for unchurched people to find their way around. CW explicitly expects cards or booklets to be made up to suit the parishes' needs and all the texts are freely available to encourage that. Sadly one has to pay a (modest) fee to do the same with APBA.

But I don't see a connection between presenting the text and dumbing down the liturgy.

We use the Canadian BCP as our text, which is fairly self contained. You pretty much follow the Eucharistic liturgy straight through. The collect, epistle, and gospel are in the same book (though of course most people don't need to read those unless they are hard of hearing.)

We give out a bulletin which tells which page the liturgy starts on, which page the readings are on, what the hymns are, and it includes the psalms with musical notation and any translations if the mass setting or motet are in a language other than English. It looks like this.

It's not totally intuitive, it probably takes a bit of thinking to coordinate the first time if one has no familiarity with a liturgical tradition, but by visit three it's a no-brainer.

I think the regular congregation is happy with this, at least I've never heard anyone asking for a change. I'm not sure about visitors, as people don't tend to be critical out loud - I've had people ask me questions occasionally such as why this or that thing is done in the liturgy, and I've shown a new person which book to use or where the service starts.

We also once or twice a year have a little one-off study group to introduce the liturgy, what it means, what the various items and postures mean and so on. These are usually pretty well attended by newcomers.

We also have an ASL interpreter for our main service, which is a diocesan thing.

I think people do tend to think people are incapable of following a more complex liturgy, and I think sometimes it is those visiting who assume that anything complex is "too hard". So presenting it clearly is important, but not I think at the expense of the liturgy itself. It is always going to be something that takes time to really immerse oneself in. Christianity just isn't that amenable to a sound-bite attitude.

seeking_perfection said:

How is the liturgy presented at the services in your churches? Do you use authorised printed versions, your own printed copies, projections?

How do your main congregation find your methods?

Click to expand...

We work directly from the BCP, and we supplement with a printed folder which includes the page numbers and the musical selections for the day. We try to stick to the rubrics as much as possible. The congregation likes this, because so many churches in town (of all denominations) have been changing and experimenting over the past 10-20 years. We like having some stability. When the liturgy is stable, it doesn't become a distraction.

What do newcomers think of your methods? Do they find it easy to read and to keep up with? More importantly, do you think they are able to understand what is being done and why each part of the liturgy is required?

Click to expand...

Sometimes it takes a couple of visits for newcomers to become accustomed to "how it works," but they usually catch on pretty quickly. Our newcomer's class does an outstanding job explaining the historical and theological significance to every aspect of the liturgy, so that they can understand what they see and hear. And we explain that the liturgy is not an outreach tool to be changed or modified when it gets old (as is the case in so many non-liturgical worship services); newcomers generally like this!

Linked with this, what are your opinions on liturgical innovation? Do people switch off because the liturgy itself is wrong or because they don't understand it/the way it is presented is wrong?

Click to expand...

I've seen a little bit of good innovation and much that is bad. We aren't out to kill anyone's fun; we just think that the liturgy that we have is an appropriate way to come before the Lord, and we believe that giant paper mache puppets, laser light shows, action movie clips, and football games belong to other spheres of life. Something doesn't belong in church merely because it exists and has a following. We do have a skit day once per year for the kids, and that's rather controversial haha; but in general, we stick to the ordinary BCP. Innovation can quickly get off track.

I have a theory that people think liturgy needs to be simplified so that un-churched people can understand it but that in simplifying they are watering it down. What is needed is for more effort to be put into explaining the liturgy in the first place. Not sure if this is actually the case however.

Click to expand...

I would be very interested in your responses and the reasoning behind them.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I've seen it happen. Churches with inspiring and moving worship services decide to remove prayers of the people and creeds, for example. Or they modify the confession of sin so that we don't sound quite so sinful. Or liturgical music is replaced with modern pop songs that contain a few of the same words. All of this is done, they tell me, to "get the unchurched into church." So I agree with you that we need to make more of an effort to teach newcomers about the liturgy. After all, the purpose of our Sunday morning gatherings isn't to entertain people who wouldn't usually even be there; it's to worship the Lord in celebration of his death and resurrection. Why not give him our best and show that to the world?

We use a digital projector, controlled by a computer package called Easy Worship.

All our liturgy is relevant to the service, and is drawn from Common Worship.

We project everything apart from the sermon (but some preachers use presentation software to illustrate their talks), intercessions (although some intercessors use stimulus images) and the final blessing.

I think visitors who are not used to screens are very pleasantly surprised, and a little relieved at not having to work at taking part.

We like the versatility of having everything on the computer. We can add or subtract to our typical service, and use different versions of the bible, if we choose. We can cater for few or many worshippers, and can have different services in each of our congregations.

If we are not using the screen, we can hide it away behind a cross-beam (part of the original church building).

We have monitors on our pillars so that everyone can see the words.

We do print some service sheets (in full) as some people like to use them and take them away. We also provide A3 sheets with large print.

The only part of the liturgy that is ever explained in my church, ime, is the Confession. I hate when each part if liturgy is explained as it is more about church and less about the gospel message. This is confirmation class stuff.

Begonias said:

The only part of the liturgy that is ever explained in my church, ime, is the Confession. I hate when each part if liturgy is explained as it is more about church and less about the gospel message. This is confirmation class stuff.

Click to expand...

I've never seen that - it does sound awful.

We use a digital projector, controlled by a computer package called Easy Worship.

Click to expand...

We have the same. The names used for it by those RUNNING the computer are varied and interesting. And a few of them that are used outside of the church building are less polite than 'Easy Worship'... hehehehe. Horrible piece of software, sadly the most convenient though.

The full service, including hymns, is printed out each week. This was largely borne out of the need for new hymns and the realisation that a single a4 sheet each works out more cost effective and probably more environmentally friendly then a new set of hymnbooks. Plus it gives scope for a much broader liturgy.

We use the BCP with the bulletin explaining what pages to go to. It also has a short explanation of how to receive communion in it for any visitors. Once a month there will be a themed Mass. The parish seems to like the themes although many did not like the Beatles Mass [that is when several of us 'discovered' the mission church in the city which our church sponsors] and I was revolted by the Patriotic Mass. But other than that, they seem ok with how the liturgy is done.

I am not into innovation. I started attending this particular Episcopal church cuz I was sick of constant innovation [and migraine inducing rock music] in my Nazarene church. Thankfully, I am safe so far from innovation and rock music.

When I started attending as a newcomer 18 months ago, the books and bulletin didn't bother me. Kind of gave me something to follow. The 8 am service doesn't have music so it is not that difficult to follow along. The few times I have been to the 10 am service with a hymnal, I couldn't keep up with the books and pages.

Coming from a non-liturgical past, I don't know why everything is done the way it is. But, being the daughter of a history professor and a music teacher, I am learning more about the historical and musical background of different parts. I also have a voice - if I am lost or confused I know who and how to ask for clarification.

I am also worn out by people who insists that we water things down in church. My theology instructor explained it to me this way - when Starbucks came on the scene with all its new lingo, it was foreign and off putting. But then the reputation for excellent quality coffee, etc became known. People considered it worth their while to get to know the lingo and pay more even for an excellent product. Instead of watering down the liturgy or the gospel message in order to draw people in, make the congregation so loving, accepting and beautiful that people will believe it is worth their time to know the liturgy, etc. What I want in a church is unconditional love poured out towards me in acceptance and forgiveness. I am sure others are the same way. If you give them that, they'll take the time to understand what the liturgy, etc is all about and embrace it.