Liturgical Abuse

[Fish and Bread]

Hi folks,

I was wondering if I could get an honest opinion on whether I'm overreacting to something. I went to the contemporary service today and the following things occurred:

- Microphones were lining the altar
- The part of the BCP prior to "The Lord Be With You" was completely skipped over.
- The priest did not process in or out and stood there at the beginning and end of the service, sort of just wandering in beforehand and leaving with everyone else afterwards.
- The New Testament scripture lesson was omitted (Leaving just one reading and then the gospel) in favor of extra music
- Bibles were provided and there were lengthy instructions prior to each reading on how to find the day's scripture, including "Hold you bibles up in the air when you've found the passage so we can start the reading when everyone is ready"
- Generally, there was a lot of informal adlibbing
- Instead of a sermon, there were a group of evangelists who literally got up and all stood *on the altar* (Not on the table itself, granted) and gave "testimonies" and sang songs that included rythmic hand clapping and toe tapping
- One lady mentioned she had been "born again" for x number of years, even though she was twice the age she mentioned.
- The terms/phrases "Can I get an amen?" and "Backslidden" were used during the "testimonies"
- During communion a large number of people loudly laughed at a small child's exclaimation, making no attempt to even muffle it.
- There were various noises going on during communion and general irreverency -- I was the *only* person I noticed who folded my hands in a prayerful posture while standing in the reception line.
- People clapped after songs as if applauding the efforts of the choir -- completely negating the liturgical purpose of worshipping God through song.

This just scatches the surface and was in addition to the typical things that midly aggravate me about contemporary service there (No pews or kneelers, folk songs versions of the Our Father and such, people chomping on eucharistic hosts as if they're bubble gum, etc). Frankly, I was really appalled. Granted, this may be a perfectly acceptable way to worship before God, but it was not an Episcopalian way of worship that I've ever seen before and it was not something that worked for me personally. I couldn't maintain much of a prayerful attitude or focus and was really very distressed. I couldn't believe this was happening at my parish. And this is coming from someone who actually enjoys Christian pop music and going to the occasional Lutheran or Methodist service. I was tempted to leave in the middle of it, though I didn't.

For starters, I know I'll never be going to a contemporary service there again (Sticking strictly to the more traditional service instead). But I'm a bit worried by the implication in part of the announcements that they're going to be doing the whole bible in the pews things during the traditional services eventually as well. I'm wondering if I should schedule a meeting with my rector and register my complaints or just let it go. And, I have to say, if they ruin the traditional service, I'm seriously considering transferring out. I'd hate to do it, I love my parish, and any other parish I might go to would mean a long trip on Sunday mornings, but when I start finding myself upset at being there (as I was tonight) and wishing I was just about anywhere else instead of my normal relaxed mediative prayerful state at church services, I'm not sure it's good for my spiritual health.

I mean, as anyone who reads my posts knows, you know it's bad when I start thinking in the middle of a service about how at least with the Roman Catholic Church I could write my bishop and make him crack down on this stuff (When I was thinking it, I was using a less family friendly term than "stuff"). I guess I'm even more high church than I thought I was -- though, really a lot of this stuff was just plain old about reverence more than even being shocked by a particularly low-church service. I felt like the liturgy was being mocked. Granted, I know not everyone is into kneelers and stained glass and incense and the priest facing the altar as I am, but there's got to be a minimum amount of liturgy to be qualify as a liturgical congregation, doesn't there? It was almost as if I had accidently shown up at a Pentecostal or Southern Baptist church. The actual liturgical elements that *were* there almost felt out of place, because the rest of the service was so non-liturgical. It wasn't just a few elements that were off, but rather a few elements that were right with most the service having gone over to a Baptist-style revival meeting, or at least what I'd imagine a Baptist-style revival meeting is liked (No offense to the Baptists intended).

So, what do you all think, have I become an orney old man before my time or do I have some legitimate gripes here (Or both :))? What, if anything, should I do?

One of the things that drew me to Anglicanism in the first place was the beauty and reverence of the liturgy and the way it drew me into contemplating God and connecting me with Christians through the ages. This was something completely different, though.

John

[AveMaria]

I'm afraid I'm not the best person to speak on liturgical abuse, as I'm no where near as well informed as I'd like to be, but hopefully someone who is more knowledgable about that will be along soon.

I, too, would have been very uncomfortable with a service such as you described. I don't know if I would have walked out or not, but I probably would have, if there was a discrete way to leave.

I'm guessing this is the contemporary service at your church? Is it always as you described, or were things possibly different? It sounds as though they brought in some evangelists to give testimony, I'm guessing that doesn't happen every week? I'd be curious, if you spoke with your Rector, as to why this was done and for what purpose. Also, who were the evangelists and what was their background - the language you said they used isn't the sort of language I've heard in Episcopal churches.

My church has started a new, Sunday evening Celtic-style Eucharist. I haven't been yet, but I've heard it's fairly contemporary and informal, and a 'Rite III' service. Apparently, about one third of the liturgy has been cut, and the Prayers of the People are extemporaneous. It doesn't sound like my cup of tea, but I do plan on at least attending once and seeing what it's all about.

Anyhow, I do have a point, even though I'm rambling - for what it's worth, I don't think you're over reacting. The bit about the bibles is particularly odd to me, especially given that people can either quietly read the relevent scriptures before the service begins, or check the lectionary before they leave for church and read it then. (I usually skip doing Morning Prayer on Sundays and read and meditate upon the days' readings instead, my mother prefers to get to church early enough to have a few quiet moments while the sanctuary is mostly empty, to read the lessons then. She prefers to not bother with following the lectionary and just checks the weekly pew bulletin).

[SirTimothy]

Hey... that sounds a lot more formal than my home church in the UK! I don't really think you have any grounds for complaining. Some people worship God in different ways. As a church we need to be open to the different ways available so that we can minister more effectively to society as a whole.

Timothy

[higgs2]

Well, it sounds dreadful. But, it is advertised as a contemporary service, and is not the only alternative, so I don't see why you would want to "crack down" on it if there are people enjoying it and you have your traditional option too.

One other comment -- about the child's exclamation during communion -- I don't know what the child said, but it could be that muffling the child would have been not only inappropriate but disrespectful to the child. My experience is that children's exuberent joy at communion seems quite appropriate for sharing the feast at the Lord's Table. Although there are some in our Parish who want them to be less joyful and more solemn. I have never seen anyone fold their hands in a prayerful posture while waiting for communion, even the altar guild ladies who get irritated at the children expressing their joy.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Well it was a contemporary service, yes?

:D

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I mean, as anyone who reads my posts knows, you know it's bad when I start thinking in the middle of a service about how at least with the Roman Catholic Church I could write my bishop and make him crack down on this stuff (When I was thinking it, I was using a less family friendly term than "stuff").

It's been my experience in the Roman Church that most parishes in their usual Sunday service resemble what you have described. While one can write the bishop, it apparently isn't done often from what I've seen.

Anglicanism provides different ways to worship and thus keeps a wide variety of the laity comfortable. The service you describe wasn't your usual service, so you have no need to worry. At least we separate them on Sunday.

[SeenAndUnseen]

But I'm a bit worried by the implication in part of the announcements that they're going to be doing the whole bible in the pews things during the traditional services eventually as well.

I can see why you are concerned. I would be too, because it is the traditional rite that would be disturbed by the introduction of the "hold up your Bibles" element. Do you happen to know anyone on the Vestry to whom you could speak on this matter? Perhaps you could request this be discussed at the next Vestry meeting, to fairly decide whether to include the Bible lifting part in the traditional service, or leave it in the contemporary only.
:groupray:

[Albion]

Hi folks,

I was wondering if I could get an honest opinion on whether I'm overreacting to something. I went to the contemporary service today and the following things occurred:

- Microphones were lining the altar
- The part of the BCP prior to "The Lord Be With You" was completely skipped over.
- The priest did not process in or out and stood there at the beginning and end of the service, sort of just wandering in beforehand and leaving with everyone else afterwards.
- The New Testament scripture lesson was omitted (Leaving just one reading and then the gospel) in favor of extra music
- Bibles were provided and there were lengthy instructions prior to each reading on how to find the day's scripture, including "Hold you bibles up in the air when you've found the passage so we can start the reading when everyone is ready"
- Generally, there was a lot of informal adlibbing
- Instead of a sermon, there were a group of evangelists who literally got up and all stood *on the altar* (Not on the table itself, granted) and gave "testimonies" and sang songs that included rythmic hand clapping and toe tapping
- One lady mentioned she had been "born again" for x number of years, even though she was twice the age she mentioned.
- The terms/phrases "Can I get an amen?" and "Backslidden" were used during the "testimonies"
- During communion a large number of people loudly laughed at a small child's exclaimation, making no attempt to even muffle it.
- There were various noises going on during communion and general irreverency -- I was the *only* person I noticed who folded my hands in a prayerful posture while standing in the reception line.
- People clapped after songs as if applauding the efforts of the choir -- completely negating the liturgical purpose of worshipping God through song.

This just scatches the surface and was in addition to the typical things that midly aggravate me about contemporary service there (No pews or kneelers, folk songs versions of the Our Father and such, people chomping on eucharistic hosts as if they're bubble gum, etc). Frankly, I was really appalled. Granted, this may be a perfectly acceptable way to worship before God, but it was not an Episcopalian way of worship that I've ever seen before and it was not something that worked for me personally. I couldn't maintain much of a prayerful attitude or focus and was really very distressed. I couldn't believe this was happening at my parish. And this is coming from someone who actually enjoys Christian pop music and going to the occasional Lutheran or Methodist service. I was tempted to leave in the middle of it, though I didn't.

For starters, I know I'll never be going to a contemporary service there again (Sticking strictly to the more traditional service instead). But I'm a bit worried by the implication in part of the announcements that they're going to be doing the whole bible in the pews things during the traditional services eventually as well. I'm wondering if I should schedule a meeting with my rector and register my complaints or just let it go. And, I have to say, if they ruin the traditional service, I'm seriously considering transferring out. I'd hate to do it, I love my parish, and any other parish I might go to would mean a long trip on Sunday mornings, but when I start finding myself upset at being there (as I was tonight) and wishing I was just about anywhere else instead of my normal relaxed mediative prayerful state at church services, I'm not sure it's good for my spiritual health.

I mean, as anyone who reads my posts knows, you know it's bad when I start thinking in the middle of a service about how at least with the Roman Catholic Church I could write my bishop and make him crack down on this stuff (When I was thinking it, I was using a less family friendly term than "stuff"). I guess I'm even more high church than I thought I was -- though, really a lot of this stuff was just plain old about reverence more than even being shocked by a particularly low-church service. I felt like the liturgy was being mocked. Granted, I know not everyone is into kneelers and stained glass and incense and the priest facing the altar as I am, but there's got to be a minimum amount of liturgy to be qualify as a liturgical congregation, doesn't there? It was almost as if I had accidently shown up at a Pentecostal or Southern Baptist church. The actual liturgical elements that *were* there almost felt out of place, because the rest of the service was so non-liturgical. It wasn't just a few elements that were off, but rather a few elements that were right with most the service having gone over to a Baptist-style revival meeting, or at least what I'd imagine a Baptist-style revival meeting is liked (No offense to the Baptists intended).

So, what do you all think, have I become an orney old man before my time or do I have some legitimate gripes here (Or both :))? What, if anything, should I do?

One of the things that drew me to Anglicanism in the first place was the beauty and reverence of the liturgy and the way it drew me into contemplating God and connecting me with Christians through the ages. This was something completely different, though.

John

This stuff makes me want to tear my hair...but not for the reasons everyone might think.

One of the great beauties and strengths of Anglicanism is COMMON PRAYER!

When that commonality is broken--that commonality that unites us with other Anglicans all over the world and of different times in history as well as with other churches--we lose something important.

Our fathers understood this. But then it began to change, and not only that, but it came in part from people who usually talk as though they should be defending the principle. They often speak of the mystical body of Christ, or the Communion of saints, or of the Catholic faith coming unchanged from the earliest days. But given a chance to tinker, and what do we get?

Insertions into the ritual of Roman Catholic features taken from the Mass, Missals instead of the BCP, new kinds of "BCP" like 1979 in which there are a half dozen eucharistic settings and two Communion rites (remember the thread in which it was asked "which Eucharistic setting is your favorite," or words to that effect). There we have, in the first instance, ritualists pushing for it or, in the second case, modernists. Not the same group necessarily. However, it comes from Evangelical quarters too, probably with even greater enthusiasm (as your experience witnessed to). Change is a contagious and very appealing idea, and it can be destructive of "the permanent things" so many Anglicans verbally identify with, as ironic as that may be.

This is not COMMON prayer, no matter what you write on the book cover.

And it has nothing to do with High Church vs. Low Church, since they existed with the same book for generations.

But start to tinker in order to be more readable, friendlier to youth, more attractive to non-traditionalists, more modern, or whatever, and you open the door to everything you lament. What did you expect from a "Contemporary Service?" OF COURSE it will trend this way, and worse, it will get moreso.

Perhaps you are familiar with the feminist liturgies that are around or with the almost unrecognizable (but gender neutral) rendition of the Creed in use by the Anglicans in New Zealand.? The trend will also be completely beyond controlling since "contemporary," as vague a term as that is in this context, has been authorized and put into motion.

[Fish and Bread]

I guess my real issue here is that, aside from the fact that I love liturgy and that it brings me in touch with God, is that we profess that liturgy is what ties us together. Albion articulated the issue very well. Common prayer is the thing that makes Anglicanism Anglicanism. We have conservatives, liberals, Anglo-Catholics, evangelicals, etc., but we can all eat around the same table and participate in the same mass. We're losing a lot of the Anglican distinctives -- common prayer is just one example. A prominent African bishop recently proclaimed that he wanted to seperate from those in the west who didn't proclaim "scripture alone" because we thus weren't true Anglicans -- um.. what happened to scripture, reason, and tradition? There's also this idea with DEPO and conservative Networks and so forth that you can pick any bishop you want now and don't have to listen to the proper episcopal authority. So, there goes the liturgy, the theology, and the even the episcopal (ruled by bishops) part of "Episcopalian"? We as might as well be congregationalists if this is truly the path we're going to take. There's nothing wrong with congregationalists, really, but it's not what I signed up for -- and if I *am* forced to be a congregationalist, I'd at least like a congregation with a liturgy that I can feel comfortable with.

I visited another parish in another town this morning (About 45 minutes from me, far enough away that someone asked me where I was from and didn't even recognize my home city). I had actually long planned this, just because I'd like to get a feel for how my denomination operates in parishes other than my own. It was good timing, though, because I needed a good service to calm myself a little. It probably wasn't what one would call high church, but I liked it. I really don't ask much, just that the prayer book and some basic liturgical traditions be adhered to and that people be reverent, and it was and they were. I didn't even object to the video they played this morning after the sermon and the people clapping for it (Alright, that wasn't my favorite part. ;)), the children saying the closing words of the liturgy, the lack of incense, or the lack of stained glass windows. I just want the feeling that I'm in the historic Christian church and not at superfun happy-clappy community fellowship congregational party hour, and this at least felt like a church. They had a procession with a cross, some candles, kneelers, and said the appropriate words, sitting and standing at the appropriate times, folded their hands prayerfully as they approached the altar rail, etc. I'm not sure you'd even call it high-church, probably broad church, but I was comfortable. So, in noticing my comfortableness, I feel affirmed that I'm not being completely unreasonablely nitpicky here -- I just want some basic things adhered to, which they weren't in my home parish last night. This parish I visited, moderate by ECUSA standards (A woman priest who gave a fairly traditional sermon about Christ that would have fit anywhere) seemed theologically more in tune with me than the Network parish I belong to, and they even had a letter from their actual bishop on a table in the hall (That's right, the bishop of their diocese, not some Network guy from hundreds of miles away).

I'd like to stay in my home parish. The traditional services are held in a beautiful stone church and I really do like the people and the priests there. I've got to admit I'm starting for feel worn down, though. I'm in a small minority that does not refuse to say the word "Episcopal" (They very pointedly say Anglican and several times I've heard people start to say Episcopal and correct themselves midway through), that likes liturgy, that feels we should follow the Godly admonitions of the bishop of our diocese, that feels homosexuals are children of God, and that doesn't wish I could be aligned with some African primate in the province of Uganda or Nigeria. The traditional liturgical service I go to probably has 15-20 people attending most weeks and really gets the short end of the stick in terms of parish functions and meetings -- it runs *at the same time* as bible studies, parish meetings, and whathaveyou during the winter in many cases, when it's not cancelled for the meetings, that is (The contemporary service is considered the main service of the parish). I feel a bit marginalized both in terms of my theology *and* my liturgical preferences, and am beginning to wonder at the value of being somewhere partly as a matter of spiritual discipline if they don't have the spiritual discipline to even pretend to adhere to the prayer book or respect their bishop. Granted, I like the people, and they are the best church within 30-40 miles of me in terms of liturgy and even theology, but I'm beginning to feel a bit discouraged and frustrated. On the other hand, there are things I like about it and I don't really want to go through the whole process of getting to know a new parish again as I'm kind of shy.

AveMaria asked if I said anything to the priest on the way out last night. I slipped out the side door to avoid doing so, figuring I should take time to calmly assess the situation first (Also, he wasn't the rector and so probably wasn't the right person to talk to). Actually, it was the main door, because the priest had stationed himself at the side door or at least seemed to be headed in that direction -- it was hard to say because he didn't didn't follow a procession out and ended the service standing on the altar. :-p I'm honestly not sure what to do at this point. My inclination is to just attend the traditional services for a while and shutup and then reassess when/if they start this whole bible in the pews thing over there. The lady on the parish staff I know well actually only attends the contemporary services, so I doubt I'd see her to relay my concerns, but I do know someone who goes to the traditional who has a role in the parish (Actually, the *only* person who is a regular each week at the traditional service who is involved in any regular capacity, though I do see the senior warden attend very occasionally, and we did have a vestuary member show up once or twice to make an announcement and leave before the service began :-p) who I may try to flag down next week and gentlely express some of my concerns to after the service about the liturgy, if nothing else. The liturgy is my biggest concern, really, because the service is the majority of my interaction with the parish and the liturgy is the entire service (Theroetically) save the sermon and announcements.

John

[higgs2]

I guess my real issue here is that, aside from the fact that I love liturgy and that it brings me in touch with God, is that we profess that liturgy is what ties us together. Albion articulated the issue very well. Common prayer is the thing that makes Anglicanism Anglicanism. We have conservatives, liberals, Anglo-Catholics, evangelicals, etc., but we can all eat around the same table and participate in the same mass. We're losing a lot of the Anglican distinctives -- common prayer is just one example. A prominent African bishop recently proclaimed that he wanted to seperate from those in the west who didn't proclaim "scripture alone" because we thus weren't true Anglicans -- um.. what happened to scripture, reason, and tradition? There's also this idea with DEPO and conservative Networks and so forth that you can pick any bishop you want now and don't have to listen to the proper episcopal authority. So, there goes the liturgy, the theology, and the even the episcopal (ruled by bishops) part of "Episcopalian"? We as might as well be congregationalists if this is truly the path we're going to take. There's nothing wrong with congregationalists, really, but it's not what I signed up for -- and if I *am* forced to be a congregationalist, I'd at least like a congregation with a liturgy that I can feel comfortable with.

I visited another parish in another town this morning (About 45 minutes from me, far enough away that someone asked me where I was from and didn't even recognize my home city). I had actually long planned this, just because I'd like to get a feel for how my denomination operates in parishes other than my own. It was good timing, though, because I needed a good service to calm myself a little. It probably wasn't what one would call high church, but I liked it. I really don't ask much, just that the prayer book and some basic liturgical traditions be adhered to and that people be reverent, and it was and they were. I didn't even object to the video they played this morning after the sermon and the people clapping for it (Alright, that wasn't my favorite part. ;)), the children saying the closing words of the liturgy, the lack of incense, or the lack of stained glass windows. I just want the feeling that I'm in the historic Christian church and not at superfun happy-clappy community fellowship congregational party hour, and this at least felt like a church. They had a procession with a cross, some candles, kneelers, and said the appropriate words, sitting and standing at the appropriate times, folded their hands prayerfully as they approached the altar rail, etc. I'm not sure you'd even call it high-church, probably broad church, but I was comfortable. So, in noticing my comfortableness, I feel affirmed that I'm not being completely unreasonablely nitpicky here -- I just want some basic things adhered to, which they weren't in my home parish last night. This parish I visited, moderate by ECUSA standards (A woman priest who gave a fairly traditional sermon about Christ that would have fit anywhere) seemed theologically more in tune with me than the Network parish I belong to, and they even had a letter from their actual bishop on a table in the hall (That's right, the bishop of their diocese, not some Network guy from hundreds of miles away).

I'd like to stay in my home parish. The traditional services are held in a beautiful stone church and I really do like the people and the priests there. I've got to admit I'm starting for feel worn down, though. I'm in a small minority that does not refuse to say the word "Episcopal" (They very pointedly say Anglican and several times I've heard people start to say Episcopal and correct themselves midway through), that likes liturgy, that feels we should follow the Godly admonitions of the bishop of our diocese, that feels homosexuals are children of God, and that doesn't wish I could be aligned with some African primate in the province of Uganda or Nigeria. The traditional liturgical service I go to probably has 15-20 people attending most weeks and really gets the short end of the stick in terms of parish functions and meetings -- it runs *at the same time* as bible studies, parish meetings, and whathaveyou during the winter in many cases, when it's not cancelled for the meetings, that is (The contemporary service is considered the main service of the parish). I feel a bit marginalized both in terms of my theology *and* my liturgical preferences, and am beginning to wonder at the value of being somewhere partly as a matter of spiritual discipline if they don't have the spiritual discipline to even pretend to adhere to the prayer book or respect their bishop. Granted, I like the people, and they are the best church within 30-40 miles of me in terms of liturgy and even theology, but I'm beginning to feel a bit discouraged and frustrated. On the other hand, there are things I like about it and I don't really want to go through the whole process of getting to know a new parish again as I'm kind of shy.

AveMaria asked if I said anything to the priest on the way out last night. I slipped out the side door to avoid doing so, figuring I should take time to calmly assess the situation first (Also, he wasn't the rector and so probably wasn't the right person to talk to). Actually, it was the main door, because the priest had stationed himself at the side door or at least seemed to be headed in that direction -- it was hard to say because he didn't didn't follow a procession out and ended the service standing on the altar. :-p I'm honestly not sure what to do at this point. My inclination is to just attend the traditional services for a while and shutup and then reassess when/if they start this whole bible in the pews thing over there. The lady on the parish staff I know well actually only attends the contemporary services, so I doubt I'd see her to relay my concerns, but I do know someone who goes to the traditional who has a role in the parish (Actually, the *only* person who is a regular each week at the traditional service who is involved in any regular capacity, though I do see the senior warden attend very occasionally, and we did have a vestuary member show up once or twice to make an announcement and leave before the service began :-p) who I may try to flag down next week and gentlely express some of my concerns to after the service about the liturgy, if nothing else. The liturgy is my biggest concern, really, because the service is the majority of my interaction with the parish and the liturgy is the entire service (Theroetically) save the sermon and announcements.

John

Wow, now that you've written this I can understand more why you were uncomfortable. I personally couldn't attend a network parish for the reasons you allude to in your post. And I can understand why you are concerned about the liturgy given that the contemporary service is the main service. I have to admit that I find your description of it hilarious: "I just want the feeling that I'm in the historic Christian church and not at superfun happy-clappy community fellowship congregational party hour". LOL! Exactly my feelings too! I think I'd have to leave if we did the "hold your bibles up" thing -- ugh!

I feel fortunate to be in a town too small to have any choices for Anglican churches. We have an ECUSA broad church parish and the conservatives and liberals and everyone in between all just have to deal with each other and figure out how to get along -- no running to foreign bishops or trying to steal the building from the diocese. To me that is how Christians are supposed to operate -- we are brothers and sisters even if we don't all agree (or even like each other in some cases). Sorry to digress, I just feel for you in your situation.

[PaladinValer]

I seriously hope that wasn't in an Anglican parish. If so, I'd write to either the diocean bishop or an assistant bishop. That is really horrible.

And if the diocean is for it, then someone should yank him or her right out of the position of diocean bishop and, come next General Convention in 2006, institute someone who actually can act like an apostolic bishop should instead of a nincompoop.

[Albion]

Wow, now that you've written this I can understand more why you were uncomfortable. I personally couldn't attend a network parish for the reasons you allude to in your post.

I think there's a misunderstanding there. Being a Network parish and contemporary liturgies are completely separate things, and Network churches are no more inclined, as a group, to engage in such as 'fish and bread' described than any other.

He himself has the idea that any bishop who doesn't go along with the national church on everything is verging upon lawlessness and, therefore, change, but that is obviously not correct considering that their concern is resisting changes in the church's values and practices, rightly or wrongly.

Fish's "pick your own bishop" concern is something apart from the contemporary worship issue.

[higgs2]

Being a Network parish and contemporary liturgies are completely separate things

Yes, I agree.

[benedictine]

The Network PArishes, IMO are actually more for universality and Common PRayer than some others.

[Fish and Bread]

Wow, now that you've written this I can understand more why you were uncomfortable. I personally couldn't attend a network parish for the reasons you allude to in your post. And I can understand why you are concerned about the liturgy given that the contemporary service is the main service. I have to admit that I find your description of it hilarious: "I just want the feeling that I'm in the historic Christian church and not at superfun happy-clappy community fellowship congregational party hour". LOL! Exactly my feelings too! I think I'd have to leave if we did the "hold your bibles up" thing -- ugh!

I feel fortunate to be in a town too small to have any choices for Anglican churches. We have an ECUSA broad church parish and the conservatives and liberals and everyone in between all just have to deal with each other and figure out how to get along -- no running to foreign bishops or trying to steal the building from the diocese. To me that is how Christians are supposed to operate -- we are brothers and sisters even if we don't all agree (or even like each other in some cases). Sorry to digress, I just feel for you in your situation.

I can remember when I was searching for a denomination, I stumbled across information and showed up at my parish. I went to one traditional service where they used some incense and fell in love with the liturgy. The rector gave a sermon that basically seemed to imply to me that those on the far left wing weren't really Christian. I remember talking to a greeter on the way out and asking a few questions (This was right after Robinson was consecrated), I mentioned Spong and Robinson briefly in a non-commital way to see what the reaction would be (I'm certainly not Spongian in my beliefs, but I knew his name was a good way to feel out how inclusive a parish was and whether they'd be ECUSA long term) and I vividly can remember her face turning when Spong's name was brought up (Not a sneer, but close) and mentioning how they had sent a lot of delegates to the then very recent initial Plano meeting (Out of which either the ACC or Network -- I don't recall which -- would eventually spring).

This was enough to keep me away for about six months after that one service, but ECUSA really seemed perfect for me in theory and I can remember checking out other services in other denominations that just never seemed quite right. I hadn't really thought much about ECUSA for a while and seemed close to settling on a UCC congregation for a while, even though I was uncomfortable with the lack of liturgy, congregational structure, and attacks on conservatives at the local UCC, among other things, when I had a dream that I was an Episcopalian priest. I figured it was more likely my subconcious speaking to me than a prophetic dream, but I thought, either way, maybe I want to attend another Episcopalian service just to see how I feel about it -- even if it was just something that's rumbling around in my subconcious, I thought that might at least mean it was where I really wanted to be, even if I didn't necessarily feel that way conciously after the experience at the service I had attended.

I wound up attending an ECUSA parish the next week and never looked back, spent over a year plus as an active member of the parish, participated in numerous classes and events, and then got confirmed recently. My faith has grown enormously and I feel like I've met a lot of wonderful people (Who, granted, have different ideologies in many respects) and learned a lot about respecting different religious viewpoints and realizing that most folks really are honest and well-intentioned in their spirituality. There were even a few things issues that the preaching and community changed my mind on. My rector has a wonderful outlook on grace, which is very helpful to me as an ex-Roman Catholic who left the faith very young in part because of works-based salvation. He also does a pretty good job of acknowledging that there are a few liberals who may disagree with him on an issue here and there instead of assuming we all agree with the Network line on everything. And, the traditional service liturgy is actually very good most of the time, though it's a very small group there and I fear may ultimately be altered or eliminated.

Yet, there's this sense, sometimes stronger than at other times, that maybe I'm a square peg in a round hole. I spend a lot of time worrying that they're going to pull out of ECUSA and wind up under the "authority" of Bishop Akinola of Uganda (Or is he the Nigerian primate? I can never remember) or something. They refuse to let the bishop of the diocese visit the parish soley because he voted yes on Robinson at GC2003 (Even though he believes in the trinity and is in many respects reasonably moderate) and so I was confirmed by a Network bishop. As someone who has come to feel very strongly about bishops and diocese as an important aspect of catholicity, I feel that in a sense as long as we are at odds with our bishop, we are incomplete. I also get the sense that people who support gays are good enough to sit in a pew, but not good enough to be priests or bishops as far as they're concerned. A small number of people, including the rector, know my views and have been very nice and welcoming, but I know they'll never call someone like me to be a rector or even accept our bishop in for visits because he has the same position as me on homosexuality. I worry about the type of reception an actual homosexual person would get if he or she showed up one Sunday. There's a creeping sort of congregationalism in play here as well and that bothers me. There's also this sense that I'm getting very attached to a parish that is going to pull out of my denomination at any moment and sue to take our property with them. The entire vestuary is pro-Network, with no balance at all.

This is probably one of only a handful of Network parishes in the country that I could really thrive in, and I feel that I am. And, yet, there are times when I wonder if I'm being true to what I believe in staying here, and times if I wonder if it's worth what's going to come down the road. If they meet to discuss a split, my conscience is going to bind me to standing up and speaking out in favor of unity and acceptance, and then my side will lose the vote by a landslide. I also get the feeling that if a settlement allows *any* conservative parishes to take their property with them, this parish will be among them, because I fear there are very few of us who wouldn't split with them. I haven't taken a poll, but it would at least be borderline whether they'd be enough people interested to sustain an ECUSA parish after a split, especially were such a parish forced to meet in a school gym or something (Whether we like it or not, I think it's a fact that many folks, liberal and conservative, are more attached to buildings than ideology). Then again, there's probably something to be said for hanging in until the bitter end as a Christian discipline and a form of discipleship, and there are many aspects of the parish I really like. I also don't feel like driving 45 minutes to church every morning, which is probably what I'd have to do to go to a parish I'd be more comfortable in. And there's always been this sense that the conservatives would be more firm in sticking to the liturgy (Though clearly that's not true.) and that since liturgy is the most important contact I have with a parish, a conservative parish would have it's advantages.

I don't know, sometimes this just seems like an awful lot of trouble for a church. One of the disadvantages of thinking too much. I reading a bit of book by, of all people, President Clinton earlier today, and he spoke a little about his experience with church. In the part I read, it seemed so simple, he believed and knew Christ, like the people, and didn't seem to give theology a second thought, even though clearly Clinton isn't exactly your average Southern Baptist in his beliefs. I don't know why it isn't that simple for me. Maybe it's partly because I understand from experiences in life what it's like to be hated for who you are. I'm not gay, but I can emphasize with homosexuals, because a lot of people have disliked and do dislike me me for things I couldn't change that had nothing to do with sexuality. In the end, even though I don't face that treatment at my parish, the idea that I'm supporting a parish that might make a homosexual feel uncomfortable and like he or she was evil weighs on me a lot. Yet, I know Jesus stands with those who are persecuted for who they are, as he was persecuted for who he was -- so I feel like my parish is on the wrong side of God on this one, I really do. And I don't feel capable of changing the situation.

John

[gitlance]

In one word: heresy.

[Albion]

Yet, I know Jesus stands with those who are persecuted for who they are, as he was persecuted for who he was

That sounds good, but there's nothing to it.

Jesus didn't "stand" for sin or condone it. In fact, he was rather harsh, if the truth be told (or scripture consulted).

[Fish and Bread]

In one word: heresy.

Traditionally for Anglicans (To the extent that the term is used at all), a hersey has been defined as disent from a Christian teaching formally defined at an ecumenical council. Therefore, if you believe I have fallen into heresy, I would ask that you please cite the ecumenical council which condemns my views. If there is not one, then I would submit that your label does not apply.

John

[higgs2]

I really feel for you, you sound very conficted. I would be too in your situation. I know what you mean about the UCC, too -- I love so much about the denomination but can't do without the liturgy.

I really relate to this: "Yet, I know Jesus stands with those who are persecuted for who they are, as he was persecuted for who he was -- so I feel like my parish is on the wrong side of God on this one, I really do. And I don't feel capable of changing the situation." It is so frustrating to feel powerless.

I wish there was something I could say to you that would be very supportive but right now I am coming up blank except that "I agree" and "I support you"! Thank you for writing about this, it is good to hear how thoughtful you are about your situation, many people are or could be in similar situations. Let's pray about this a lot, that's the best idea I can come up with right now."

I can remember when I was searching for a denomination, I stumbled across information and showed up at my parish. I went to one traditional service where they used some incense and fell in love with the liturgy. The rector gave a sermon that basically seemed to imply to me that those on the far left wing weren't really Christian. I remember talking to a greeter on the way out and asking a few questions (This was right after Robinson was consecrated), I mentioned Spong and Robinson briefly in a non-commital way to see what the reaction would be (I'm certainly not Spongian in my beliefs, but I knew his name was a good way to feel out how inclusive a parish was and whether they'd be ECUSA long term) and I vividly can remember her face turning when Spong's name was brought up (Not a sneer, but close) and mentioning how they had sent a lot of delegates to the then very recent initial Plano meeting (Out of which either the ACC or Network -- I don't recall which -- would eventually spring).

This was enough to keep me away for about six months after that one service, but ECUSA really seemed perfect for me in theory and I can remember checking out other services in other denominations that just never seemed quite right. I hadn't really thought much about ECUSA for a while and seemed close to settling on a UCC congregation for a while, even though I was uncomfortable with the lack of liturgy, congregational structure, and attacks on conservatives at the local UCC, among other things, when I had a dream that I was an Episcopalian priest. I figured it was more likely my subconcious speaking to me than a prophetic dream, but I thought, either way, maybe I want to attend another Episcopalian service just to see how I feel about it -- even if it was just something that's rumbling around in my subconcious, I thought that might at least mean it was where I really wanted to be, even if I didn't necessarily feel that way conciously after the experience at the service I had attended.

I wound up attending an ECUSA parish the next week and never looked back, spent over a year plus as an active member of the parish, participated in numerous classes and events, and then got confirmed recently. My faith has grown enormously and I feel like I've met a lot of wonderful people (Who, granted, have different ideologies in many respects) and learned a lot about respecting different religious viewpoints and realizing that most folks really are honest and well-intentioned in their spirituality. There were even a few things issues that the preaching and community changed my mind on. My rector has a wonderful outlook on grace, which is very helpful to me as an ex-Roman Catholic who left the faith very young in part because of works-based salvation. He also does a pretty good job of acknowledging that there are a few liberals who may disagree with him on an issue here and there instead of assuming we all agree with the Network line on everything. And, the traditional service liturgy is actually very good most of the time, though it's a very small group there and I fear may ultimately be altered or eliminated.

Yet, there's this sense, sometimes stronger than at other times, that maybe I'm a square peg in a round hole. I spend a lot of time worrying that they're going to pull out of ECUSA and wind up under the "authority" of Bishop Akinola of Uganda (Or is he the Nigerian primate? I can never remember) or something. They refuse to let the bishop of the diocese visit the parish soley because he voted yes on Robinson at GC2003 (Even though he believes in the trinity and is in many respects reasonably moderate) and so I was confirmed by a Network bishop. As someone who has come to feel very strongly about bishops and diocese as an important aspect of catholicity, I feel that in a sense as long as we are at odds with our bishop, we are incomplete. I also get the sense that people who support gays are good enough to sit in a pew, but not good enough to be priests or bishops as far as they're concerned. A small number of people, including the rector, know my views and have been very nice and welcoming, but I know they'll never call someone like me to be a rector or even accept our bishop in for visits because he has the same position as me on homosexuality. I worry about the type of reception an actual homosexual person would get if he or she showed up one Sunday. There's a creeping sort of congregationalism in play here as well and that bothers me. There's also this sense that I'm getting very attached to a parish that is going to pull out of my denomination at any moment and sue to take our property with them. The entire vestuary is pro-Network, with no balance at all.

This is probably one of only a handful of Network parishes in the country that I could really thrive in, and I feel that I am. And, yet, there are times when I wonder if I'm being true to what I believe in staying here, and times if I wonder if it's worth what's going to come down the road. If they meet to discuss a split, my conscience is going to bind me to standing up and speaking out in favor of unity and acceptance, and then my side will lose the vote by a landslide. I also get the feeling that if a settlement allows *any* conservative parishes to take their property with them, this parish will be among them, because I fear there are very few of us who wouldn't split with them. I haven't taken a poll, but it would at least be borderline whether they'd be enough people interested to sustain an ECUSA parish after a split, especially were such a parish forced to meet in a school gym or something (Whether we like it or not, I think it's a fact that many folks, liberal and conservative, are more attached to buildings than ideology). Then again, there's probably something to be said for hanging in until the bitter end as a Christian discipline and a form of discipleship, and there are many aspects of the parish I really like. I also don't feel like driving 45 minutes to church every morning, which is probably what I'd have to do to go to a parish I'd be more comfortable in. And there's always been this sense that the conservatives would be more firm in sticking to the liturgy (Though clearly that's not true.) and that since liturgy is the most important contact I have with a parish, a conservative parish would have it's advantages.

I don't know, sometimes this just seems like an awful lot of trouble for a church. One of the disadvantages of thinking too much. I reading a bit of book by, of all people, President Clinton earlier today, and he spoke a little about his experience with church. In the part I read, it seemed so simple, he believed and knew Christ, like the people, and didn't seem to give theology a second thought, even though clearly Clinton isn't exactly your average Southern Baptist in his beliefs. I don't know why it isn't that simple for me. Maybe it's partly because I understand from experiences in life what it's like to be hated for who you are. I'm not gay, but I can emphasize with homosexuals, because a lot of people have disliked and do dislike me me for things I couldn't change that had nothing to do with sexuality. In the end, even though I don't face that treatment at my parish, the idea that I'm supporting a parish that might make a homosexual feel uncomfortable and like he or she was evil weighs on me a lot. Yet, I know Jesus stands with those who are persecuted for who they are, as he was persecuted for who he was -- so I feel like my parish is on the wrong side of God on this one, I really do. And I don't feel capable of changing the situation.

John

[higgs2]

In one word: heresy.

That is pretty simplistic, what exactly are you finding to be heretical?

[Fish and Bread]

Jesus didn't "stand" for sin or condone it.

I agree that Jesus did not stand for sin. I think our differences on a few select issues are not the result of any basic disagreement on Christ's philosphy of hating sin and loving the sinner (Which I think we would both agree was Christ's philosphy), but rather on whether certain things are sins. Out of respect for the forum's rules, I can not elaborate on why I do not consider some things sins that a more conservative Christian might feel qualify as sinful.

John

[Albion]

I agree that Jesus did not stand for sin. I think our differences on a few select issues are not the result of any basic disagreement on Christ's philosphy of hating sin and loving the sinner (Which I think we would both agree was Christ's philosphy), but rather on whether certain things are sins. Out of respect for the forum's rules, I can not elaborate on why I do not consider some things sins that a more conservative Christian might feel qualify as sinful.

John

That particular issue isn't the big deal. It's the approach to what the church is all about. "Anything goes" (AKA "inclusiveness") seems the preferred policy for the church in much of what you have said here and previously, but yet you spend a lot of time reversing yourself when it comes to keeping ownership of church PROPERTY! And keeping the organization intact! On those political, social, and legal issues, a sense of morality is both center stage and non-negotiable.

Something's inverted there, isn't it?

[Fish and Bread]

I really feel for you, you sound very conficted.

I am very conflicted when it comes to the situation at my parish. I feel that much more unites me with them than divides me from them, and I adore many of the folks there on a personal level. And yet, there are clearly some other things to consider when evaluating the situation, such as concerns about their possible lack of commitment to unity, inclusiveness, the authority of bishops in the Christian life, dioceses, liturgy, and even to staying within our denomination!

One thing that comes into play is that there may be some things about a more liberal parish that would also bother me if I went there, as I am certainly a traditionalist in some respects and fully endorse every word of the Nicene Creed. I also take a conservative stance on abortion (Which shocks most people to hear, given my more liberal views on many social issues). It's kind of hard to be a moderate in a denomination that seems to be polarizing into extremes.

I wish there was something I could say to you that would be very supportive but right now I am coming up blank except that "I agree" and "I support you"!

Thank you.

John

[Fish and Bread]

That particular issue isn't the big deal. It's the approach to what the church is all about. "Anything goes" (AKA "inclusiveness") seems the preferred policy for the church in much of what you have said here and previously

I feel all of Christianity must be viewed through the prism of the cross. On the cross, God proved his ultimate love for humanity by dying for our sins. In being willing to do that, despite the law's condemnation of nearly all of us, he sent a clear message that love is the the most central value of our God -- so central that he was willing to lower himself down to the level of a simple human being, temporarily emptying himself of much of his power and enduring human hardships, and ultimately dying a brutal death -- in order to prove that point. We also see that in many of Christ's teachings. So, yes, love is my preferred policy, even to those who do not follow the law in all respects. Christ's law is the law of love.

but yet you spend a lot of time reversing yourself when it comes to keeping ownership of church PROPERTY! And keeping the organization intact! On those political, social, and legal issues, a sense of morality is both center stage and non-negotiable.

Something's inverted there, isn't it?

I believe love is always center stage and non-negotiable, though I respect the right of others to disagree with my interpretation of what love is on certain issues and to still share in Christian fellowship.

John

[Albion]

I feel all of Christianity must be viewed through the prism of the cross. On the cross, God proved his ultimate love for humanity by dying for our sins. In being willing to do that, despite the law's condemnation of nearly all of us, he sent a clear message that love is the the most central value of our God -- so central that he was willing to lower himself down to the level of a simple human being, temporarily emptying himself of much of his power and enduring human hardships, and ultimately dying a brutal death -- in order to prove that point. We also see that in many of Christ's teachings. So, yes, love is my preferred policy, even to those who do not follow the law in all respects. Christ's law is the law of love.

So, excusing the child abuser in the next pew is good, as also the KKK member or the and the adulterer everyone knows is cheating on his wife. After all, Love and nothing but Love (meaning acceptance) is the Gospel.

I don't think so. More to the point, I've never met an advocate of openness, inclusiveness, and toleration who applied it across the board. What they always mean is tolerance and acceptance of those whom the speaker feels for, and nothing but the harshest language for those with whom the speaker disagrees. Sometimes it's "fundamentalists," sometimes it's "the Network," sometimes bishop, sometimes the parishioners who don't beam at the name of Bishop Spong. For them, no fondness. I guess I find such contradictions unsettling.

[Albion]

I believe love is always center stage and non-negotiable, though I respect the right of others to disagree with my interpretation of what love is on certain issues and to still share in Christian fellowship.



But it was not Love that was center stage and non-negoitable. It was the withdrawal of it in the situations described. At least, shouldin't words and deeds match up?

[Fish and Bread]

So, excusing the child abuser in the next pew is good, as also the KKK member or the and the adulterer everyone knows is cheating on his wife. After all, Love and nothing but Love (meaning acceptance) is the Gospel.

Do child abusers, KKK members, or adulterers show love to the people in their lives they hurt? I would submit the answer is no. Thus, their behaviors are something to be condemned, though I do still feel people can ultimately be redeemed by Christ and turn away from their sins, and we should encourage them to turn away from their sins. When we talk about people who error in doctrine and hurt no one, though, I think we have to place that in a different category and say it's an error but not a sin. I also think when people hurt no one but violate a purity code of some sort, it's a different category as well. Christ seemed to feel strongly that the law would not pass away, but that those who could not follow the cultural teachings of the law would yet enter the kingdom of heaven, and that the much greater concern was loving God and each other.

I don't think so. More to the point, I've never met an advocate of openness, inclusiveness, and toleration who applied it across the board. What they always mean is tolerance and acceptance of those whom the speaker feels for, and nothing but the harshest language for those with whom the speaker disagrees. Sometimes it's "fundamentalists," sometimes it's "the Network," sometimes bishop, sometimes the parishioners who don't beam at the name of Bishop Spong. For them, no fondness. I guess I find such contradictions unsettling.

We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. I'm no exception to that. One of the things I strive for personally and don't always achieve is to show as much fondness as I can for all who seek to follow Christ. To any I may have offended, I apologize, though I do hope you were making a general statement and that I haven't said too much that fits into what you've said above. I do want to note that the lady who didn't beam at the name of bishop Spong is a wonderful person and one of the people I get along with the best at my parish now. I hope she considers me a friend, because I consider her one.

John

[Fish and Bread]

[In reference to property/unity issues] it was not Love that was center stage and non-negoitable. It was the withdrawal of it in the situations described. At least, shouldin't words and deeds match up?

I think when we speak of who gets the property and so forth, to a certain extent it's a no-win situation when deciding who gets them. No matter what, some people will feel hurt, because almost every parish is going to have people who want to stay and people who want to split. In the absence of any clear moral imperative on these property issues, which I feel does not exist, I'd thus tend to fall back on the Christian tradition of the diocese as the center of Christian life and the ECUSA canons which affirm that parishes hold property in trust for the diocese. There is also a canon which affirms that the diocese hold property in trust for ECUSA, though that is just a canon and not tradition.

I'd tend to think what would be most in accordance with Christian tradition would be to let each diocese keep it's property, which would include allowing the Network dioceses to keep the property in their areas. The canon granting ECUSA ownership of all property could be relaxed to allow for that, and I would favor doing so, on the condition that the Network dioceses agree to allow liberal parishes within their boundries to take one-time only votes to reaffiliate with ECUSA and form the basis of new ECUSA dioceses in those areas (Since, afterall, legally I think ECUSA is entitled to *all* the property, but we'd be letting Network dioceses join a new mostly intact as a generous nod to to Christian tradition). Granted, some liberals would get on my case for allowing conservatives more than they are legally entitled to, and some conservatives in non-Network dioceses would not like having to acquire new buildings, but I think it is by and large a good solution.

John

[Albion]

OK, but Love is paramount in some situations and legalisms and technicalities in others, not Love. Or at least, there is selective Love.

Not wanting to argue with someone I enjoy chatting with, I'll leave it at that.

[Fish and Bread]

Moving back towards the topic we began the thread with, on a personal level, I am considering attending my the traditional liturgy at my home parish every other week as well as on all holidays and feast days and maintaining my membership there, while attending a more moderate parish (Perhaps the one I visited this morning) every other week excluding holidays and feast days. This allows me to stay an active part of my local parish family by attending over 30 services a year (Which is more than most active members attend anyhow), keeping up with my friends there, and being a part of what I truly do feel is in many respects a wonderful parish community; while stilll giving myself a breather from some of theological and liturgical issues I have there and semi-establishing myself elsewhere in case I find myself cut off from my parish by a split in ECUSA and have to someday transfer my membership. I also think I'm going to stop reading news blogs that focus on these issues and stick to just message boards and the ECUSA press releases that are e-mailed to me in order to cut down my angst about all this and focus more on loving God and loving all my brothers and sisters in Christ of all theological stripes (conservative, liberal, and moderate).

Does this sound like a reasonable solution to you all? Or should I keep thinking?

John

[Fish and Bread]

Not wanting to argue with someone I enjoy chatting with, I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for the kind words. I find I often look forward to reading your comments on various topics. Though we sometimes disagree, I always find you to be a very well-informed and polite person, full of love for God and neighbor. I also think we're also two of only a handful of folks here who believe that works play no role in securing salvation for the faithful but are rather simply an outgrowth of faith. :)

John

[gitlance]

JOHN! Oh my, I am terribly sorry! I was not at all directing "heresy" towards you! I was writing that in sympathy with your disturbance at the contemporary "worship" service.

Manifold apologies on my behalf!

Christ's peace.

[Albion]

Moving back towards the topic we began the thread with, on a personal level, I am considering attending my the traditional liturgy at my home parish every other week as well as on all holidays and feast days and maintaining my membership there, while attending a more moderate parish (Perhaps the one I visited this morning) every other week excluding holidays and feast days. This allows me to stay an active part of my local parish family by attending over 30 services a year (Which is more than most active members attend anyhow), keeping up with my friends there, and being a part of what I truly do feel is in many respects a wonderful parish community; while stilll giving myself a breather from some of theological and liturgical issues I have there and semi-establishing myself elsewhere in case I find myself cut off from my parish by a split in ECUSA and have to someday transfer my membership. I also think I'm going to stop reading news blogs that focus on these issues and stick to just message boards and the ECUSA press releases that are e-mailed to me in order to cut down my angst about all this and focus more on loving God and loving all my brothers and sisters in Christ of all theological stripes (conservative, liberal, and moderate).

Does this sound like a reasonable solution to you all? Or should I keep thinking?

John

Here's advice I would give to a friend, and it is completely free of ideological preferences.

Stay put.

Or switch, if you must.

Having the neverending tension of being part of a parish in which you have serious misgivings is destructive of your wellbeing. It doesn't matter who is the conservative and who the liberal, if it is just about local personalities, or whatever. You've got to have peace when you worship.

As for the future of the Network, there's always a lot of heat and less light in these matters. Possibly nothing much will happen in the end. Either way, YOU have to have peace. If worrying about it is something you can't shake off, maybe the switch would be best.

Peace of mind will not come if you don't feel at home in one place or the other. I don't mean accepted, but having it be your "home." The advice also goes for anyone else, of course, even if it applied to a charismatic in a non-charismatic parish, a low churchman always put off by incense, etc.

Lay all that down--after carefully and prayerfully deciding where to alight, that is.:)

[Fish and Bread]

JOHN! Oh my, I am terribly sorry! I was not at all directing "heresy" towards you! I was writing that in sympathy with your disturbance at the contemporary "worship" service.

Manifold apologies on my behalf!

Christ's peace.

I apologize for misunderstanding your statement. I should have considered that you were unlikely to decide that an individual was a heretic without further discussion and more extensive citations. You don't seem like one who jumps to such conclusions lightly. Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight.

John

[Fish and Bread]

Having the neverending tension of being part of a parish in which you have serious misgivings is destructive of your wellbeing. It doesn't matter who is the conservative and who the liberal, if it is just about local personalities, or whatever. You've got to have peace when you worship.

As for the future of the Network, there's always a lot of heat and less light in these matters. Possibly nothing much will happen in the end. Either way, YOU have to have peace. If worrying about it is something you can't shake off, maybe the switch would be best.

Peace of mind will not come if you don't feel at home in one place or the other. I don't mean accepted, but having it be your "home." The advice also goes for anyone else, of course, even if it applied to a charismatic in a non-charismatic parish, a low churchman always put off by incense, etc.

Lay all that down--after carefully and prayerfully deciding where to alight, that is.:)

I had begun to really feel that my parish was home. Despite my misgivings, I did feel at peace when I was worshiping most weeks, and figured I'd get married in the beautiful old stone church and burried in the grave yard out back. Unfortunately, I sometimes feel a bit like someone who's spouse is meeting with a lawyer and considering a divorce, though, and constantly hinting she may leave at any moment and try to take the house with her in the divorce proceedings -- it really impedes my sense of being able to feel secure in my surroundings and my relationship with the parish. Most of the time, this is an underlying tension that I can put aside to a certain degree and be restful for worship, but it is something I think about that tends to come to the forefront when someone (Priest or laity) says something that hints at the situation or there's a big meeting internationally where it seems the Communion is inching closer to a split (As I interpreted the Nottingham meeting). One of the ways I'm able to put that aside to some degree is to focus on the common love of church tradition as expressed through the liturgy at the traditional services (Much as when one having trouble with your spouse, one might focus on what each person has in common), our common commitment to a grace-driven theology that is essentially Lutheranism with some hints of Catholicism (Granted, my theology is more liberal than their's), and the fact that I genuinely do like a lot of the people and personalities involved (In short, it's nothing personal and I'd miss some of them if I didn't see them every so often and shake their hands in the pews each week, or at least semi-regularly). I think that's part of why Saturday's liturgical abuses and Baptist theology hit me so hard -- none of the commonalities I thought I shared with my parish were at all evident in that service and seemed to be refuted, in fact -- and it was on the heels of feeling a need to have commonalities reaffirmed after the ACC meeting.

I'm not ready to give up on my parish yet, though, as I feel it's my spiritual home and I have an attachment to the people who share it with me, including the clergy. It's also think it's good to have a fellowship in your hometown; a church you can make it to on Ash Wednesday night without missing work, people you run into on the street once in a while, folks with common experiences living in the local city, a place where you can actually participate in some classes once in a while (Since the drive isn't prohibitive to make several times a week), and a place close enough where the rector can drop by to visit you in the hospital and deliver communion or unction if you get sick (A not insignificant concern for me given my health history). I have misgivings, but I worry that in some senses leaving would just be trading one set of misgivings for another.

At the same time, I do think maybe attending services locally a bit less frequently would lend me some degree of perspective and help me relax, and it'd barely be noticed because a lot of folks take vacations or simply reduce their frequency of church attendence during the summer as part of the normal course of doing things. Using every other or even every third Sunday to worship elsewhere also would help me connect more to the denomination I've joined as a whole rather than just being a member of a specific parish -- my parish may lean towards the congregational, but I do not (Probably in part it's personal preference for me as well as theological; I was raised Roman Catholic and moved around a lot, which meant I was basically raised to view myself as a member of my denomination first and a member of a given parish second). I don't view this as a long term answer, but rather as a way of perhaps lending me some perspective and peace as things move towards a resolution, a resolution which probably is going to be beyond my control to a certain extent and should become apparent in the coming weeks, months, or, at worst, at least by Lambeth 2008 (Will the parish leave ECUSA? Will they get rid of my traditional service? Etc.). In fact, I could easily see trying to this arrangement for a month or two and then cutting it short and just going to services every week at my home parish again.

Your advice is right on target, actually, it's just not as clearcut for me as feeling completely at home or not right now, I both do and don't. So, I need to get a better perspective of things and let the events beyond my control shake out, with the ultimate goal of doing as you suggest and either completely staying put or formally transferring my membership elsewhere.

John

[SirTimothy]

Having the neverending tension of being part of a parish in which you have serious misgivings is destructive of your wellbeing. It doesn't matter who is the conservative and who the liberal, if it is just about local personalities, or whatever. You've got to have peace when you worship.

I agree. I spent a year arguing with God about where I was meant to be. It was tearing me in half. I moved to the AC, where he had called me... and suddenly, I have peace about it. I'm happy there.

Timothy

[UberLutheran]

And I'm glad we've got contemporary services for people who like contemporary services to attend.

Contemporary (in the sense you just described) really isn't my "thing". I do like Setting V from the Blue Book; Richard Proulx' Community Mass; and Marty Haugen's Now the Feast and Celebration and Holden Evening Prayer; and I'm perfectly happy in a Taizé service -- but what you described just isn't my cup of tea, so I don't go to those kinds of services.

[SirTimothy]

so I don't go to those kinds of services.

You're not required too as music director? ::boggle::

Timothy

[AveMaria]

Nah, music directors have to sleep, occasionally. ^_^

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You're always welcome to join us. ;) ^_^

Oh, no, wait...this is coming from the person who was trying desperately not to do something very violent to a guitar during Communion last week...:sigh:

I'd recommend a time machine to go back to when worship was actually about God. And if you find one, please lend it to me!

Happy Feast Day of Ss Peter and Paul everyone! :)

Rob

[Wigglesworth]

Oh, no, wait...this is coming from the person who was trying desperately not to do something very violent to a guitar during Communion last week...

God likes guitars.


Praise him with the tambourine and dancing; praise him with stringed instruments and flutes!

[Robbie_James_Francis]

God likes guitars.

Well I don't! ^_^ (j/k)

Of course I think all sorts of musical instruments and differing forms of worship can and should be offered to God. However, the Mass is a specific Sacrifice and since I wouldn't play a guitar while Christ was being crucified at Calvary, I wouldn't do it at Mass either.

I'm not debating or anything :o ...just explaining what I feel.

Happy feast day of Ss Peter and Paul everyone! :)

Rob :liturgy:

[Wigglesworth]

. . . the Mass is a specific Sacrifice and since I wouldn't play a guitar while Christ was being crucified at Calvary, I wouldn't do it at Mass either.

I see your point. Solemnity is appropriate on some occasions, and joyful music is appropriate on other occasions.

[Fish and Bread]

You're always welcome to join us. ;) ^_^

That's exactly what my mother, who is Roman Catholic, said when I mentioned this issue to her. :) I politely declined her invitation and mentioned that there is also plenty of liturgical abuse with the RCC, citing a RCC mass a very charming young lady I am hoping to get better acquainted with mentioned attending, where communion was actually passed down the isles. The Episcopal Church may not be quite as cool as I thought in this one respect, but it's still the best place for me. :)

Happy Feast Day of Ss Peter and Paul everyone! :)

Thank you. Happy Feast Day to you as well!

John

[Lel]

Well I don't! ^_^ (j/k)

Of course I think all sorts of musical instruments and differing forms of worship can and should be offered to God. However, the Mass is a specific Sacrifice and since I wouldn't play a guitar while Christ was being crucified at Calvary, I wouldn't do it at Mass either.

I'm not debating or anything :o ...just explaining what I feel.

Happy feast day of Ss Peter and Paul everyone! :)

Rob :liturgy:

Ah, yes, I went to my first Mass in many years (at least ten) a few weeks ago, and they had a number of guitars there. I nearly walked out the door.

Now were it a praise concert or something, that'd be great to have guitars.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

That's exactly what my mother, who is Roman Catholic, said when I mentioned this issue to her.

Great minds think alike, eh? ;)

communion was actually passed down the isles.

:eek:

Thank you. Happy Feast Day to you as well!

Happy Feast Day of the First Martyrs of the Church in Rome. :) (I've started now...I can't stop ^_^ )

Rob

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Now were it a praise concert or something, that'd be great to have guitars.

My thoughts exactly. :)

Rob :liturgy:

[svdbygrace]

Guitars? One of the RC parishes here uses them at the Mass. It's the traditional parish btw. The Episcopal church where I attend also uses guitars, but mostly around Advent/Christmas. This really suprised me btw as even the Baptist Church I attended, never used guitars (well, ever since I can remember). I think as long as the music being played, sung, ect. is directed to God, and in reverance, and respect then it's acceptable for worship, but like I said, that's what I think ;).

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I've only seen guitars used in RC parishes.

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I've only seen guitars used in RC parishes.

At Mass? :sigh: :help:

[gtsecc]

http://tctees.com/catalog.htmlhttp://logo.cafepress.com/7/251827.jpg

It affected us too!
But, the new guy is going to rectify the problem I am certain!

[Robbie_James_Francis]

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/005541.php

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/Pics/spiritbuster.jpg

^_^

Father Benedict Groeschel--"If you ever meet the Spirit of Vatican II, drive a wooden stake through it's heart." ;)

I have to say I think the Second Vatican Council was excellent, and I, as a matter of Faith, am bound to accept all of it's doctrinal promogulations. But the 'spirit' of Vatican II (when it directly conflicts with the letter of Vatican II, which it often does) I'm not so keen on...

Rob :liturgy: