Probably one of the biggest changes in my worship life since I move to the US has been my "relationship" with the liturgy of Holy Communion.
Although congregations in the British Methodist system only celebrate communion once a month, as a minister, I generally presided at a Sunday communion service every week as I served four congregations. In addition to Sunday communion services, I often attended a mid-week communion service at the local Church of England parish and my duties often required me to preside at communion at local nursing homes as well as to celebrate with individuals who were house-bound.
So, it has been a big change to go from presiding at or receiving communion once a week or more to receiving communion once a month on Sundays.
I don't really consider myself an "expert" on Methodism in the New World, but I'm given to believe that within living memory, there were congregations which didn't celebrate communion in the main Sunday service, but which had a "tack on communion" at the end of the service. I remember briefly attending a Methodist church in Washington DC in about 1979 or 1980, where communion was held in a separate Chapel directly after the main service which was held in the sanctuary. Methodist communion here still feels a bit like a rush-job to me: it feels like it's "tacked on" to the service of the word which feels like it's is "the real deal" with communion as something of an embarrassing activity like getting caught making out in the car as a teenager. At least our pastor uses the entire communion liturgy: Great prayer of thanksgiving and epiclesis as well as the words of institution. In a number of places, I've experienced just the words of institution.
Yesterday (Saturday) evening, I attended a local Lutheran congregation which had sent out an invitation to their Christmas service. I didn't want to go to the Christmas service as our congregation had its own, but I learned from the Lutheran congregation's website that they hold a "blended" style of worship on Saturday evenings at 5:30 and the website advertised communion at every service. Yesterday evening was a service of nine lessons and carols (something I think is probably unusual in the US?), with communion at the end. Here again, the "communion liturgy" consisted only of the words of institution, but the rest of the service was somewhat more "liturgical" and everything seemed to flow towards the communion rather than making the communion an embarrassing afterthought. It was a sufficiently positive experience, that I think I will become a regular at this Saturday evening service. It will be good to have communion once a week again.
Showing posts with label liturgy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liturgy. Show all posts
27 December 2009
10 April 2009
11 January 2008
Common Worship 'Times and Seasons'
For those who have not seen it, there are free, downloadable files available giving texts from Common Worship Times and Seasons which I have found useful, even as a non-Anglican.
The website doesn't yet contain all the text of Times and Seasons but it seems to have more than the last time I looked and is now running through to Pentecost in the Church calendar.
The same URL also offers downloads from Common Worship itself (again, not absolutely everything), Common Worship Daily Prayer and New Patterns for Worship.
The website doesn't yet contain all the text of Times and Seasons but it seems to have more than the last time I looked and is now running through to Pentecost in the Church calendar.
The same URL also offers downloads from Common Worship itself (again, not absolutely everything), Common Worship Daily Prayer and New Patterns for Worship.
06 January 2008
Thoughts on Extempore (Extemporaneous) Worship
I hope fellow Methoblogger, Richard Hall, of Connexions won't be embarrassed if I say that he presided at a very fine extempore (that's 'extemporaneous' if you're American) service of communion at the Methodist Bloggers' Meet.
Richard commented at the time that he used to like written liturgy but that he's grown into an appreciation of Methodism's tradition of extempore praying.
I joked during the 24 hours that all of us were together at the bloggers' meet about how I miss my Lutheran liturgical background. This experience of liturgy was fuelled by participating in post Vatican II Roman Catholic liturgy where I saw the fixed form and shape of the written liturgy expressed in a very 'local' way that was meaningful to the congregation. I guess I learned then that written liturgy can be done 'freely' and 'meaningfuly' and that added a whole new dimension to something that I already loved.
Although I have oodles less experience in Methodism and as a minister than Richard, I too am beginning to appreciate the extempore tradition. And, in my opinion, anyone who had participated in the 'bloggers' communion' on Saturday could not have failed to apprecaiate the riches of this tradition.
What's my sometimes gripe with the extempore tradition? I've often seen it done badly. Badly in a way that suggests that someone in back in 1850 didn't quite understand the shape of worship and they started some bad practice and this bad practice has been passed down for four or five generations. Prayers that didn't know whether they were confessions or intercessions or thanksgivings which sometimes resulted in lots of confession and prayers of intercession for ill people in the congregation and not much else. Prayers that don't reflect the entirety of salvation history but which are very locally focussed (totally inappropriate for a 'great prayer of thanksgiving' before communion, for example).
What we had yesterday wasn't anything like that and I've seen other good examples of extempore worship in my time as well as the bad examples. Extempore worship can be wonderful when the worship leader(s) understand the shape and function of different aspects of the liturgy. I'll get to Richard's stage with a lot more practice; there are a few elements of the liturgy I could do extempore now - probably most of the prayers outside of the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving - but I reckon that extempore liturgy takes a lot of experience as well as knowledge. I'm definitely not confident enough to do an extempore sermon yet! (I heard a story the other day of a very experienced minister who forgot the entire service at home and had to do the whole thing extempore. Yikes!)
Richard commented at the time that he used to like written liturgy but that he's grown into an appreciation of Methodism's tradition of extempore praying.
I joked during the 24 hours that all of us were together at the bloggers' meet about how I miss my Lutheran liturgical background. This experience of liturgy was fuelled by participating in post Vatican II Roman Catholic liturgy where I saw the fixed form and shape of the written liturgy expressed in a very 'local' way that was meaningful to the congregation. I guess I learned then that written liturgy can be done 'freely' and 'meaningfuly' and that added a whole new dimension to something that I already loved.
Although I have oodles less experience in Methodism and as a minister than Richard, I too am beginning to appreciate the extempore tradition. And, in my opinion, anyone who had participated in the 'bloggers' communion' on Saturday could not have failed to apprecaiate the riches of this tradition.
What's my sometimes gripe with the extempore tradition? I've often seen it done badly. Badly in a way that suggests that someone in back in 1850 didn't quite understand the shape of worship and they started some bad practice and this bad practice has been passed down for four or five generations. Prayers that didn't know whether they were confessions or intercessions or thanksgivings which sometimes resulted in lots of confession and prayers of intercession for ill people in the congregation and not much else. Prayers that don't reflect the entirety of salvation history but which are very locally focussed (totally inappropriate for a 'great prayer of thanksgiving' before communion, for example).
What we had yesterday wasn't anything like that and I've seen other good examples of extempore worship in my time as well as the bad examples. Extempore worship can be wonderful when the worship leader(s) understand the shape and function of different aspects of the liturgy. I'll get to Richard's stage with a lot more practice; there are a few elements of the liturgy I could do extempore now - probably most of the prayers outside of the Great Prayer of Thanksgiving - but I reckon that extempore liturgy takes a lot of experience as well as knowledge. I'm definitely not confident enough to do an extempore sermon yet! (I heard a story the other day of a very experienced minister who forgot the entire service at home and had to do the whole thing extempore. Yikes!)
01 August 2007
Why I Kinda Like Liturgy
Why I Kinda Like Liturgy - Strange title?
First of all, I want to explain that I'm writing this post from the context of British Methodism. If you happen to be an expert in the history of Christian liturgy or a Vestment Vixen, this post is definitely not for you. This post is my explanation into a denomination where I perceive that congregations generally don't have have much regard for formal, written liturgy and often look down upon it.
Secondly, I use the word 'kinda' because I want to explain what I think is good about formal, written liturgy. Often, I think, Christians assume that if one likes liturgy, one will also hate a service with extempore prayers and/or charismatic worship. I do not hate informal or extempore worship; For me, personally, these two forms of worship serve different purposes; I suspect that they may also reach different types of people and that some people are best reached by formal, written liturgy and others are best reached by extempore worship.
So here is why I 'kinda like' formal, written liturgy.
1) Most worship has 'liturgy' or ritual in it anyway. When I attended a church with informal worship, we always began with three praise songs, two which built us up into praise of God and one which quietened us down a bit to come before God in a prayer of approach. Believe it or not, that's actually liturgy. As are the words 'Oh Lord, we just want to come before you today and bless your holy name.' That's liturgy too. This is probably how the first ancient liturgies got written. People found patterns of worship and words that worked and these were repeated until they eventually got written down.
2) Formal, written liturgy has good theology and is well-written. This is important to me. I don't think I've had any 'bad theological experiences' in Methodism, but I've had them in other informal contexts. What can you do when someone says something in prayer or leading worship that is simply incorrect doctrinally? Not a lot, really. Also, in my experience, the theology expressed in informal worship almost invariably centres around 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' or possibly with 'healing' if it's a healing service. Both are well and good, but somewhat limited. Formal liturgy references all three persons of the Trinity and their work, Christian discipleship and stewardship as well as having a personal relationship with Jesus.
3) Formal, written liturgy links us with Christian tradition. I suspect that for many this might be an argument to abandon formal liturgy altogether! But I don't actually think that Church Tradition has gotten everything wrong all the time. When we use formal, written liturgy, we are not only linking ourselves with other Christian brothers and sisters who are saying those prayers right now, but we also link ourselves with our Christian brothers and sisters who went before us into glory.
4) Formal, written liturgy helps us to pray when we don't have the words to pray ourselves, especially those of us who have not been given the gift of speaking in tongues. People often testify to being held in the practice of prayer during times of emotional distress by saying the Daily Office. Also, one benefit of saying the daily office is that you get into the habit of praying whether you 'feel like' it or not.
I think that the number one criticism I hear of formal, written liturgy is that it is rote and insincere and done by people who don't 'really believe'. As someone who values liturgy and who believes and feels that she is 'really and sincerely worshipping' when she uses it, that can often be hard to hear. That said, I know I've certainly seen and heard liturgies where it appeared that neither the worship leader nor the congregation were getting much out of it. But I think that flags up a danger with respect to written liturgy. I don't think it's correct to say that all practice of formal liturgy must necessarily be insincere.
One of the things I love about Methodism is our 'wide church' approach. We are theologically wide and liturgically wide. I hope that Methodists can respect each other no matter what form of worship they prefer.
N.b. This post is not a criticism of any individual or any group in Methodism. I hope it's not perceived that way. It's been born of some discussion about 'worship styles' both on the internet and In Real Life.
First of all, I want to explain that I'm writing this post from the context of British Methodism. If you happen to be an expert in the history of Christian liturgy or a Vestment Vixen, this post is definitely not for you. This post is my explanation into a denomination where I perceive that congregations generally don't have have much regard for formal, written liturgy and often look down upon it.
Secondly, I use the word 'kinda' because I want to explain what I think is good about formal, written liturgy. Often, I think, Christians assume that if one likes liturgy, one will also hate a service with extempore prayers and/or charismatic worship. I do not hate informal or extempore worship; For me, personally, these two forms of worship serve different purposes; I suspect that they may also reach different types of people and that some people are best reached by formal, written liturgy and others are best reached by extempore worship.
So here is why I 'kinda like' formal, written liturgy.
1) Most worship has 'liturgy' or ritual in it anyway. When I attended a church with informal worship, we always began with three praise songs, two which built us up into praise of God and one which quietened us down a bit to come before God in a prayer of approach. Believe it or not, that's actually liturgy. As are the words 'Oh Lord, we just want to come before you today and bless your holy name.' That's liturgy too. This is probably how the first ancient liturgies got written. People found patterns of worship and words that worked and these were repeated until they eventually got written down.
2) Formal, written liturgy has good theology and is well-written. This is important to me. I don't think I've had any 'bad theological experiences' in Methodism, but I've had them in other informal contexts. What can you do when someone says something in prayer or leading worship that is simply incorrect doctrinally? Not a lot, really. Also, in my experience, the theology expressed in informal worship almost invariably centres around 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' or possibly with 'healing' if it's a healing service. Both are well and good, but somewhat limited. Formal liturgy references all three persons of the Trinity and their work, Christian discipleship and stewardship as well as having a personal relationship with Jesus.
3) Formal, written liturgy links us with Christian tradition. I suspect that for many this might be an argument to abandon formal liturgy altogether! But I don't actually think that Church Tradition has gotten everything wrong all the time. When we use formal, written liturgy, we are not only linking ourselves with other Christian brothers and sisters who are saying those prayers right now, but we also link ourselves with our Christian brothers and sisters who went before us into glory.
4) Formal, written liturgy helps us to pray when we don't have the words to pray ourselves, especially those of us who have not been given the gift of speaking in tongues. People often testify to being held in the practice of prayer during times of emotional distress by saying the Daily Office. Also, one benefit of saying the daily office is that you get into the habit of praying whether you 'feel like' it or not.
I think that the number one criticism I hear of formal, written liturgy is that it is rote and insincere and done by people who don't 'really believe'. As someone who values liturgy and who believes and feels that she is 'really and sincerely worshipping' when she uses it, that can often be hard to hear. That said, I know I've certainly seen and heard liturgies where it appeared that neither the worship leader nor the congregation were getting much out of it. But I think that flags up a danger with respect to written liturgy. I don't think it's correct to say that all practice of formal liturgy must necessarily be insincere.
One of the things I love about Methodism is our 'wide church' approach. We are theologically wide and liturgically wide. I hope that Methodists can respect each other no matter what form of worship they prefer.
N.b. This post is not a criticism of any individual or any group in Methodism. I hope it's not perceived that way. It's been born of some discussion about 'worship styles' both on the internet and In Real Life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
