Stuff
So I had a good meeting in town with Rev. Parker from Stalybridge going over sermon writing, liturgy and orders of service. He says I write a very good, personal sermon and have a relaxed, approachable, dynamic way of preaching that really reaches out.
He went through my sermon for Wakefield on 21st September which i thought was wooly and shitty, but no it just needs editting tighter. I thought it too vague and not terribly biblical but he says its okay and has plenty of reference to Scripture.
I just need to work on editting my sermons to make them tighter and now having preaching appointments once or twice a month will definately get me into the sermon and service writing mode and be a good test for my calling as a Preacher and also my ability to write sermons. Thus far, I've found it easy to write services due to the eratic nature of my preaching appointments in the past and having time to write them and also bucketfulls of inspiration, on average writing a sermon in about an hour and it being more or less service ready.
As much as I dislike the "Anglican Churchy" nature of the lectionary, I think I might get a copy to provide inspiration for services.
So far Im at Urmston Church on 7th September, Wakefield on the 21st September, Stalybridge 18th October and also from September preaching once per month at Denton.
Rev Paker suggests I get more involved wtih Denton Church rather than Brookfield as that church has a bigger membership, is also in need of leadership but importantly has more potential for services and events in addition to Sunday mornign worship. Brookfield is in a shitty area and there is no way you would go out to attend an evening or even afternoon service, whereas Denton is in a nice area where one could hold mid week or Sunday evening services (meditation, Taize style etc) and people should be able to attend. Admittedly, the area Brookfield in is probably more in need of Church than Denton, but if its not safe to go...
Rev Parker reckons I've got a bit, okay more than a bit, of ambivalence going on in my head re liturgy. I was brought up as a Methodist, and of the Wesleyan sort. So services had good singing with an Anthem by the choir. Chapel was definately chapel - Georgian neo Grecian peacing box but with a bowed (i.e. semi circular) front with an oval gallery, central pulpit with organ on the gallery behind with choir pews either side etc. all in mahogany and polished pitch pine. Quite Puritan and Reformed Protestant really, so "high church" liturgy with processionals, vestments etc and all the Medieval parafanalia associated with the Anglican church was a bit of a turn off, especailly with all their stained glass windows and statues. "Thou shalt not make and Graven Image" springs to mind as does St Paul's words about Idolotry. There was quite a bit of that, as we thought we had moved on from archaic medieval liturgy to a reformed, protestant one with reason on its side. How very englightenment. There was also the old addage banded about that the lowe the area (socially) the higher the church (liturgically) and as we were very low Church and the Parish Church down the road almost Catholic, and well, given we did have historically some very wealthy families attending in the past, there was that aspect too.
However I do appreciate the music, the theatre, some element of the ritual (ringing bells around the communion table, the incense, everything being so serious and formal, men in dresses, having to use special bits and bobs for parts of the service, I find hilariously funny, and totally and utterly irrelevant) as creating a sense of something special and the mystery of God very useful. Yet, at the same time, the Reformed Protestant in my soul looks at it all and riles against it. To me it is nice art but crap theology and is a stumbling block; it creates a "them and us" between the people and the minister and worship team, in some cases has a real and effective barrier (Rood Screens), removes the liturgical action and the ministry and their ministry from the people by having it in another part of the building...I love the art and the music for the sake of what they are. For others, however, it isn't a stumbling block. There is a sense of tradition, that things have been done this way for centuries, the continuity of the Church and "church" etc. But then if one is going to church and doing things because they always have been done, then as St Paul says, its empty, just a banging gong, there's nothing there, its ritual and history for the sake of it.
Hence the confusion. I like some of it, but yet, in the back of my mind, is that Protestant, almost Puritanical voice shouting it's all rubbish and should be cleaned away.
It's finding a way through that allows me to balance these two views and appreciate them and also those of others.
Free Christian Churches, like Brookfield, have stained glass, wall paintings and in the past robed semi professional choirs and a very "high church" liturgy but yet were also vehemently Anti-Established Church, anti-Ritual and anti-Roman Catholocism. They have a Chancel with a quire, communion tables (never an altar) with a Reredos, six candles on them (but they are never lit as that would be too Catholic), and a communion rail but communion done once a quarter or perhaps once per year on Maundy Thursday.
I guess my own liturgical schizophrenia fits!
I like robed choirs (just in a cassock, not a surplace) because they look more professional, more corporate, look like a choir not a random group of singers. Processing in makes the service that bit more special/more of a special event. I wear a hood and gown with preaching bands to preach because part of me likes dressing up, looking smart, I think it also adds to making the act of worship special, and its traditional and I think it matters to look the part. I don't wear it because I want to look special or set myself appart, if that makes sense. It's not a case of look at me and my shiny robes.
Yes, I think it could be a barrier or a stumbling block between myself and people in the congregation, but I also feel leading worship is more than the clothes, the ritual, the music, it's more than the sum of it's parts - its about creating the right atmosphere, allowing everyone to join together in the communion of friendship, of fellowship and love, to help them find and experience God, to help them worship God, to feel the transcending love and presence of God in their lives. Anything that can add to that experience of worship is therefore valid, but when worship and parts of that act are done because they always have been or become more important than worship then they lose that and need to be examined and re-explored.
He went through my sermon for Wakefield on 21st September which i thought was wooly and shitty, but no it just needs editting tighter. I thought it too vague and not terribly biblical but he says its okay and has plenty of reference to Scripture.
I just need to work on editting my sermons to make them tighter and now having preaching appointments once or twice a month will definately get me into the sermon and service writing mode and be a good test for my calling as a Preacher and also my ability to write sermons. Thus far, I've found it easy to write services due to the eratic nature of my preaching appointments in the past and having time to write them and also bucketfulls of inspiration, on average writing a sermon in about an hour and it being more or less service ready.
As much as I dislike the "Anglican Churchy" nature of the lectionary, I think I might get a copy to provide inspiration for services.
So far Im at Urmston Church on 7th September, Wakefield on the 21st September, Stalybridge 18th October and also from September preaching once per month at Denton.
Rev Paker suggests I get more involved wtih Denton Church rather than Brookfield as that church has a bigger membership, is also in need of leadership but importantly has more potential for services and events in addition to Sunday mornign worship. Brookfield is in a shitty area and there is no way you would go out to attend an evening or even afternoon service, whereas Denton is in a nice area where one could hold mid week or Sunday evening services (meditation, Taize style etc) and people should be able to attend. Admittedly, the area Brookfield in is probably more in need of Church than Denton, but if its not safe to go...
Rev Parker reckons I've got a bit, okay more than a bit, of ambivalence going on in my head re liturgy. I was brought up as a Methodist, and of the Wesleyan sort. So services had good singing with an Anthem by the choir. Chapel was definately chapel - Georgian neo Grecian peacing box but with a bowed (i.e. semi circular) front with an oval gallery, central pulpit with organ on the gallery behind with choir pews either side etc. all in mahogany and polished pitch pine. Quite Puritan and Reformed Protestant really, so "high church" liturgy with processionals, vestments etc and all the Medieval parafanalia associated with the Anglican church was a bit of a turn off, especailly with all their stained glass windows and statues. "Thou shalt not make and Graven Image" springs to mind as does St Paul's words about Idolotry. There was quite a bit of that, as we thought we had moved on from archaic medieval liturgy to a reformed, protestant one with reason on its side. How very englightenment. There was also the old addage banded about that the lowe the area (socially) the higher the church (liturgically) and as we were very low Church and the Parish Church down the road almost Catholic, and well, given we did have historically some very wealthy families attending in the past, there was that aspect too.
However I do appreciate the music, the theatre, some element of the ritual (ringing bells around the communion table, the incense, everything being so serious and formal, men in dresses, having to use special bits and bobs for parts of the service, I find hilariously funny, and totally and utterly irrelevant) as creating a sense of something special and the mystery of God very useful. Yet, at the same time, the Reformed Protestant in my soul looks at it all and riles against it. To me it is nice art but crap theology and is a stumbling block; it creates a "them and us" between the people and the minister and worship team, in some cases has a real and effective barrier (Rood Screens), removes the liturgical action and the ministry and their ministry from the people by having it in another part of the building...I love the art and the music for the sake of what they are. For others, however, it isn't a stumbling block. There is a sense of tradition, that things have been done this way for centuries, the continuity of the Church and "church" etc. But then if one is going to church and doing things because they always have been done, then as St Paul says, its empty, just a banging gong, there's nothing there, its ritual and history for the sake of it.
Hence the confusion. I like some of it, but yet, in the back of my mind, is that Protestant, almost Puritanical voice shouting it's all rubbish and should be cleaned away.
It's finding a way through that allows me to balance these two views and appreciate them and also those of others.
Free Christian Churches, like Brookfield, have stained glass, wall paintings and in the past robed semi professional choirs and a very "high church" liturgy but yet were also vehemently Anti-Established Church, anti-Ritual and anti-Roman Catholocism. They have a Chancel with a quire, communion tables (never an altar) with a Reredos, six candles on them (but they are never lit as that would be too Catholic), and a communion rail but communion done once a quarter or perhaps once per year on Maundy Thursday.
I guess my own liturgical schizophrenia fits!
I like robed choirs (just in a cassock, not a surplace) because they look more professional, more corporate, look like a choir not a random group of singers. Processing in makes the service that bit more special/more of a special event. I wear a hood and gown with preaching bands to preach because part of me likes dressing up, looking smart, I think it also adds to making the act of worship special, and its traditional and I think it matters to look the part. I don't wear it because I want to look special or set myself appart, if that makes sense. It's not a case of look at me and my shiny robes.
Yes, I think it could be a barrier or a stumbling block between myself and people in the congregation, but I also feel leading worship is more than the clothes, the ritual, the music, it's more than the sum of it's parts - its about creating the right atmosphere, allowing everyone to join together in the communion of friendship, of fellowship and love, to help them find and experience God, to help them worship God, to feel the transcending love and presence of God in their lives. Anything that can add to that experience of worship is therefore valid, but when worship and parts of that act are done because they always have been or become more important than worship then they lose that and need to be examined and re-explored.