The Guide contains how-to-do-it advice on starting, developing and sustaining fresh expressions of church based on shared experiences.
More about The Guide
Share
- Guide |
- Blog
| - Networks |
- Perspectives |
- Community |
The Guide contains how-to-do-it advice on starting, developing and sustaining fresh expressions of church based on shared experiences.
More about The Guide
Posted by Andrew Wooding on 28 February 2011
The question of appropriate liturgies, usually for a proposed Messy Communion, often comes up at training days for Messy Church.
There's a divided reaction. The Anglicans take on a hunted air, while those of other denominations just look smug or slightly baffled that such a question should be any sort of a problem. I was chewing floorboards at the question raised at General Synod about Messy Church, which was not along the lines of 'How can we encourage and equip churches in this growth area?', but 'Has the Liturgical Commission considered whether it should produce guidelines or materials which would enable those leading Messy Church events to bring the worship into line with the principles behind Common Worship?'
Cue weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The answer given suggested that as the Liturgical Commission was in touch with Messy Church, it was fine not to make us compromise our messiness. I did get in touch with the Liturgical Commission some years ago to see if there could be permission to try out different communion liturgies. It was then that I (a lifelong Anglican) learned that what makes Anglicans Anglican is our liturgy: a revelation to me.
Liturgy means 'the people's work'. Its roots are linked to the words for 'public service'. When a bishop recently led a Messy Church confirmation service, it caused the diocese to see that this different congregation needs a different form of liturgy from one eminently suitable for services in cathedrals. The church then has a choice: either she decrees that the new form of church has got it wrong in its attitude to church behaviour and must learn to conform to existing liturgies on formal occasions at least (or do without them altogether 'until it learns some manners'), or she sees an opportunity to grow liturgies appropriate and meaningful to the new congregation.
This does not entail dumbing anything down. It involves reimagining what liturgy can do at its best: providing 'portable poetry' that seeps out at home, at school and at work, in our contented bathtime warblings and our arrow prayers of despair - the articulation of porous grace osmosing from the gathered church into everyday life to make a difference to whole communities.
It might also mean encouraging local churches to recognise the best liturgy for their own idiosyncratic congregation. In other words, become a resource rather than a requirement. This is the sort of liturgy I could get excited about.
Lucy works for BRF as team leader of Messy Church, proud to be the single most prolific cake-consuming expression of church in the English- (and now Danish-) speaking world. You can find out more about the Messy interdenominational, international, intergenerational network here.
If you would like to comment on this blog entry, go to 'Comments' at this bottom of this page.
If you have something burning to say and want to contribute to the Share weekly guest blog, please contact Karen Carter. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the Church of England, the Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church, Church Army, Fresh Expressions or any of its partners.
Comments
'Fresh Expression'??
Posted by George Runacus on 25 March 2011 - 22:32
I seem to have got this Fresh Expressions all wrong. I thought I heard Graham Cray and others say that it is about creating a new expression of church for people who want to worship in a different way. A way that they cannot do in an/the established way of worship. Therefore why bother with liturgy at all? Just do your own thing seems to be todays mantra. or as Robbie Williams sang 'Let me entertain you'.
I'm not a died in the wool right wing Anglican but I do feel that the good old CofE, with all its faults, does offer such wide variety of worship and is seen by many people - like the YP's in Pam's comment preferring compline - as a trusted brand (in the modern business jargon).
Hey, my grandchildren loved Messy church last Saturday but I saw lots of adults who didn't seem to be ministered to in any meaningful way. Perhaps a suitable liturgy might have kept them interested when we went into church later.
Posted by David Muir on 30 March 2011 - 15:07
Come on, get a life here. The idea that Compline is going to draw in a whole new raft of people into the life of the Christian faith in this country is a pipedream. By what logic is the CofE a 'trusted brand' today? I don't think so. Many younger adults see churches as unspiritual places, because we are so locked into ourselves and so full of ourselves. God help us.
Yes, we do need things to engage people, including adults at Messy Church. But it is only from our insiders view that the CofE offers 'such wide variety of worship'. For a lot of people not used to church, it is just the same old stuff in Common Worship, tarted up a bit. Just because it's a liturgy doesn't mean it's profound. And forms of worship that don't use a lot of liturgy are not necessarily 'entertainment'. Why do you think so many people attend worship in Cathedrals these days, if it isn't for the entertainment value? They don't attend the same liturgies in their parish churches!
Posted by George Runacus on 1 April 2011 - 12:29
I see liturgy as a set of tools and not a set of rules. Not all social workers have beards and wear flip flops (or Jesus sandals) but they all do social work. Not all people like the same music but it is all music (Though I did know one guy who absolutely hated any kind of music)........
I keep going back to your post and I'm getting more confused about what you are saying. Are you for or against Fresh Expressions? Are you for or against evangelisation? If you are an 'insider' with 'insiders' views perhaps you need to get out more - I know I do.
I think we are a bit on the same wavelength when I see the annual B2CS (Back to Church Sunday), I ask myself what that's all about. 'Back to church' infers that someone has been away and is being invited back rather than saying Come to Church and see if it meets with your assuptions.
I dont think anyone suggested that Liturgy is profound though sometimes it is or can be. It depends, I believe, if we engage with 'the tools' which are provided by all religions and none.
I dont have any facts or figures relating to Cathedrals but there is some data here http://www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php which might help the discussion.
Spartacus
Posted by Pam Smith on 31 March 2011 - 09:32
Who's said that Compline is going to draw a raft of people into the Christian faith? I haven't - I've told a completely true story about a very unexpected appreciation of an existing form of worship used in a new context.
The aim at the moment is allegedly 'mixed economy' which means valuing inherited church alongside exploring new forms.
Unless you've got access to research about why people attend Cathedrals, your guess is as good as mine, and vice versa. But having been a member of a Cathedral for quite a few years my guess was that it's much easier to come in at the back of a Cathedral and leave without being asked to explain yourself than it is in the average parish church. Having been through this myself when I became a Christian as an adult, I can tell you it wasn't the liturgy that put me off churches but the interrogation that I got at the end of the service about what I was doing there and what church I went to normally (nobody ever seemed to think a new person might be a new Christian incidentally!)
Being Anglican
Posted by Laurence Keith on 21 March 2011 - 14:59
Apparently, I'm an Anglican, but I'm not the least bit bothered about changing / not really using formal liturgies, so am I?
Posted by Pam Smith on 23 March 2011 - 11:04
Well that's an interesting question Laurence, but as I understand it 'being' Anglican is more about your sense of self identity.
When I became a Christian I knew (or thought I did ) that I had been 'christened into the Church of Englanc' - of course I hadn't, I'd been baptised into the church of Christ, but nobody told me that. However I believed I was already a member of the Church of England, so that's the church I joined - after trying quite a few different C of E churches - and that's where I have remained.
Although I see myself as first and foremost a Christian, for me it is helpful to have a lens through which to see that, a point of entry, call it what you will - I just think being a Christian entails location, not just geographical location but maybe a cultural location as well.
Of course when we are called to communicate Christianity to those who do not share our cultural location, being contextual may demand that we adapt what we find culturally appropriate to make it culturally appropriate for those we are in connection with.
However I think there are some dangers if that inadvertently slips into 'US' reinventing or repackaging liturgy in a way that we feel is culturally appropriate for 'THEM'.
I remember an event on youth ministry I attended a good few years ago now where a group of young people presented a workshop on contemplative prayer and meditation, which they had been practising as a peer led youth group for some time.
Someone who was well into his forties argued with them for some time that young people like rock music and they had got it all wrong!
A local youth leader freely admits that his attempts to connect with a Goth group that had gathered around his church via youth Alpha, contemporary Christian music etc failed dismally, and he was somewhat astonised when a ministry student on placement introduced Compline which the group loved!
liturgies for fresh expressions
Posted by David Muir on 4 March 2011 - 23:44
Thanks for flying the flag for this, Lucy. It is a widespread problem. I will be interested to see what the Liturgical Commission does with the recent General Synod request for more transparent liturgies for baptism. I failed to get our Diocese to give me (as a Pioneer Minister) more freedom with baptism liturgies, receiving the reply that the task is to educate people into appreciating the liturgies that exist.
The issue of 'Anglican' is a real one. It is a confusion between what is most distinctive about something and what is most important about it. To me, the most important thing about the Church of England is that it is the established and default church of the people of England. It is our calling to minister to all the people, although allowing that some wish to distance themselves from us (non-conformists, RCs, humanists and such...). It is not about maintaining maximum continuity of worship style with our founding fathers. But that latter viewpoint is very deeply rooted amongst senior leadership.
how not to comprimise
Posted by Reverend Tim Waghorn on 1 March 2011 - 04:59
Thanks Lucy for raising this topic. I often wonder what it is we are 'protecting' when we desire liturgy to be left as is. Yes, it serves a purpose in the life of the church as a gathered body, however to a world who are experiencing church, seeking a church that engages with their lives, this style of liturgy may not (and in cases of people I have spoken to) is not.
I am all for a liturgy for the times, a liturgy specific to our neighbourhoods and a liturgy that is meaningful.
Reverend Tim Waghorn
St Augustines, Mont Albert North. Australia