It's Sunday - Let's Debate Church Service Styles!

[DCJenn]

I grew up in the Episcopal church and even had the whole big shabang formal Episcopal church service (not mass but the longer version of the service) when I was married the first time. I kept hoping that it would just stick but never did.

I much prefer the formal style of church as opposed to the shorts and flip-flop kind of kumbaya stuff. (and that whole shake the hand of the people around you thing- that has to stop. It gets back to that touch thing- why would I want to greet people on a Sunday morning in church. Why?)

We're happily humanists at the moment and there are no 'services' here in San Antonio. and they're much like the UU services anyway- discussions of ethics etc. as opposed to preaching. I like the mental challenge but it a moot point since it doesn't exist in SA. I plan to send the dude to humanist/ethical society camp at some point though.

I like going to other people's services- I'd like to see what they're all about. and I have to say the Jews have the good food after services thing locked up. the Catholics and Southern Baptists have nothing on the Jews. A big old hunk of kugel on a Friday night is the way to go.

Jenn

Jenn,

But wouldn't you enjoy a wine and cheese social after Saturday Mass? Alas, haven't seen Kugel but I have seen us break out the doughnuts. That's got to count for something.

Here's the big shocker: I prefer formal if we are to use those words in choosing between formal and contemporary.

Perhaps I would say that I appreciate churches with a solid liturgical calendar. So, I suppose forms of Luthernism, Anglican / Episcopal would feel more at home for me if I were to choose something other than Roman Catholicism.

The liturgical seasons and everything attendant with them have provided a rhythm to my life ever since I can remember. So, Advent, Lent and the cycles of the readings rather than bore me give me a chance to look back, reflect and see something new in what on its surface could be misconstrued as "same old".

That's why even in a "formal" structure everything can still be "contemporary" -- it's what I and those around me bring that day and how it might applied that keeps rituals from becoming tired anachronisms.

And on a side note, I definitely think persons should feel comfortable in their synagogue, mosque, parish, church, etc. etc. Yet from my perspective, since from a liturgical perspective there are a fair amount of similairities - the "shopping" is something I don't have much experience with. From a Christian theological perspective, and here C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters comes to mind, if I was shopping too much, I might worry that I'd become to focused on the fault's of others (not refering to Julie in the original thread).

There will always be sinners, annoying people, fill in the blanks everywhere. And I am one of them every time my tush graces the pews near you. From a theological perspective then, if I were to find that no parish (in my case) was ever good enough than I'd think I'd become more focused on the "horizontal" rather than the "vertical" -- e.g. that all fall short of perfection around us rather than (in my case) Christ above us. Also, I'd worry that I not only would miss on the opportunity to receive but to give as well. I think community is important for me and for others.

[GrayMatterWife]

I am an Episcopalian. Because the Episcopal Church USA runs the gamut in terms of how orthodox any particular diocese or church is, you can get anything from "flip-flops" to "suits 'n ties" in terms of dress, and anything from "Jesus was a really good philosopher but we don't believe that he literally rose from the dead or was born of a virgin, so eucharist isn't all that important" to "Nicene creed all the way, all the smells 'n bells, gosh you could mistake us for Catholics."

I am in the camp with the latter, so I enjoy the formal (as it is referred to, "high") liturgical mass.

DH's parents are nondenominational evangelical Christians (their church is very close in theology, though, to Southern Baptists). Their church is congregational and informal. I don't care for the services (especially since their members think that Episcopalians and anyone else belonging to a church that recognizes apolostic succession isn't really a Christian), but it seems to really work for them, so I figure, "to each his own." I keep my mouth shut and go to their church with them when I am visiting. But--honestly--I do not trust them when it comes to teaching DS about faith. They often try to "work in" concepts when they are with him that I do not agree with. They don't like my church, find it "unchristian," and have told me that "I deserve better." I know they mean well, because they really do believe that they have my/DS's best interests at heart, but their depth of ignorance about my church is profound and also the basis for their misconceptions. But whatever...

during the summer we like to take the children to other Catholic Churches around town so they can experience the Mass in new ways.

That's a great idea! I'm not happy with our current parish, mostly it's the priest. Now, he wants to monitor all the families who take the school subsidy to ensure that they are going to mass every sunday and not just dropping off the envelope. I think he wants every family to show proof of mass attendance each week. Ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's the only catholic school in our area. Not related to the school issue, but he will not marry any couple who lives together before marriage. We had to listen to his rant about living in "sin" during the same mass as our DS's baptism...and we were sitting in front. I hope he didn't notice me rolling my eyes. DH and I lived in "sin".

[SuzySunshine]

I guess I would say traditional, that is what I raised with and I prefer the Catholic mass I grew up with. Of course this is the "traditional" post-vatican II catholic mass.

The priest that married us was like yours melfitz, luckily I've seen few other catholic priests that "strict".

[Rapunzel]

Re: It's Sunday - Let's Debate Church Service Styles!

What do you think of traditional versus contemporary church services?

Me, I can't stomach contemporary services. Although I am wiccan, I love to attend Episcopal services. There is something about them (maybe that I went there as a child) that I find quite comforting and peaceful. However, I don't understand contemporary services. Where is the history? The "dressing up to go to God's house" concept is out the window. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing shorts and sneakers to church, but I see it every time I go now, and it's not even my religion.

To me, I think that respect for the institution has been forfeited under the guise of (theoretically) making religion more accessible to more people. Was it really unaccessible before? No. It just wasn't as entertaining. I think it's (swinging the firey gauntlet to the floor) another instance of dumbing down our culture to have contemporary services where everything has to be yelled, spelled out, and assisted with visual aids like overhead projectors and "dramatic re-enactments". The result is that you have a lot of churchgoers that hard-line what they are told but don't really have to figure it out on their own. They walk away with a fully formed message, so there's nothing to do but consume it and move on.

The other side of this is the free-form Unitarian/Universalist churches I've attended. Much more high-minded on the discussion side, but because everything goes, there is no revered observance of history and tradition. Plus, let's face it, Pagans are weird. Well, group-inclined Pagans are weird. The rest of us couldn't be picked out of a crowd. I have no interest in sweat lodges, camping out, or raising power with a group of people while wearing a robe. It all turns me off. Which is one more reason why I am a solitary practitioner who can't pass up a good Episcopalian Palm Sunday service.

SO! Enough tangent. Contemporary or Traditional: Your Thoughts?

Lily, it's scary how much we agree on some things....



The Mormon and the Pagan
(although there are people out there that would say that's one and the same )

:nothing:

[Rapunzel]

OK, actually, I *think* LDS services are more traditional.

I am honestly not sure how other religions might define them. I'll explain them as best I can and you guys tell me what category they fit:

We have three meetings:

1)Sacrament meeting - first hour - opening hymn (only instruments weregularly have are piano and organ - with special musical numbers occasionally if they are of a spiritual, reverent, uplifting nature), prayer by member of the congregation, passing of the sacrament (bread and water after being blessed), and then, usually what we call "talks" by members of the congregation assigned in advance (topics chosen as well) by our priesthood leadership. I've given many talks in my life.... We are all basically taught to give these talks and speak in public from the time we're about four years old. It ends with a closing hymn and prayer (again assigned to a different member of the congregation).

2)Sunday School - second hour - adults go to one class children go to Primary. We discuss the scriptures (this year it is the New Testament next year it is The Book of Mormon). The teachers are encouraged to have a great deal of input from the classmembers (I've taught Sunday School many times and it is much easier to have a Socratic method of teaching the scriptures than just lecture imo). Anyway, the idea is that we all learn from one another - and the teacher often has the most to learn!

3)Relief Society/Priesthood meetings - third hour - the women's group (Relief Society) and men's group (Priesthood) have the same lessons - just focused on the different genders as they see things/react to things/learn things often in very different manners and often have different emotional needs - I've taught Relief Society quite a bit as well.

Dress for church meetings on Sundays is dress shirt, slacks, and tie for men and conservative dress or top and skirt for women. Equivalents for children. Children ARE included in the Sacrament meeting (as in they don't go somewhere else during this meeting). The clergy is lay (ie unpaid and it is a calling in addition to their normal, secular job/career). There is no yelling, shouting, spontaneous singing nor standing or dancing during our meetings. It's fairly sedate - reverent is what our overriding rule is.

Soooooo.... I know that it's probably not traditional in the sense of the pagentry of the Catholic church or in the sense of the "fire and brimstone, come to Jesus" sermons in, say, a Southern Baptist church. But, it's also not as casual in dress and demeanor as I've seen with the UU church on my corner when we lived in Boston (the minister was our neighbor for awhile interesting aside). And, we definitely don't do sweat lodges.


So, how would you define an LDS service according to those characteristics?

I would also put LDS on the more traditional part of the spectrum. It has been a while (15 years?) since I went to a service. I know I went to the first hour and I think to the second (specific to age and male/female?). It seemed to me like there was less singing than in other services.

Overall, I prefer a traditional service to a contemporary one for many of the reasons that Lily cited. For a while, I went to a very contemporary non-denominational church. One of the things that I did like was that it wasn't just lip service that "anyone" was accepted there and people weren't judged based on how they dressed. However, I don't think that is a reason to dress down for church. I grew up attending more traditional style services with my grandparents and I really felt that people were judged and looked down on if they weren't dressy enough.

I ultimately didn't like the contemporary music or style of presenting things (among some other issues).

It's been a while since I've been to an Episcopalian service (did I even spell that correctly?). I remember liking the church I would go to with my cousin, probably more formal in structure. When I have been going lately, I attend a church that is more formal in the program or structure, more traditional in hymns, but not as traditional in membership (active gay membership). I also really like the traditions and rituals of the Jewish holidays and Friday evenings. I miss being invited to that with our old friends. So yes, sign me up for ritual and tradition.

Not so much church-shopping but I just find it interesting to see how other people worship. :huh: It is interesting to visit from a "home base" of another church. Though I don't really have the time to do this much any more.

[pstone]

God (I wonder if the pun is intended) I just find them all horrible. Jesuit high school and years of Sunday school and this is where I find myself. A sunday morning walk in the woods does more for me and my relationship with the spiritual than any service.

[mommax3]

I don't have any personal experience with high church traditions, but during my undergraduate years, I sang in lots and lots of different churches and enjoyed the ritual and the time for reflection that I found there. I also enjoy going to chapel (and the occasional service) at the church that houses my kids' school. However, not having grown up with all of that, it doesn't feel like "home" to me.

I go to a non-denominational Bible church, and although we have an order to our services, it isn't very formal. The people in our church are from a variety of different church backgrounds, and we do tend to step up the formality a bit around Christmas and Easter......I really love the Advent service there. One thing, though....as someone who is perpetually involved in music that takes place during services, there is very little time for me to reflect at all, since I am usually leading worship or performing during those times. Our church would probably be described as blended in terms of its style. There are three of us who take turns planning the music, and each of us puts a little different twist on things, depending on our preferences and what we feel will enhance and complement what the sermon will be about. I love contemporary christian music because it is different and I tend to think about the words more, since I haven't sung them a million times, but I find myself coming back to hymns more and more lately when I plan worship. We do have drums and guitar, but no one misses them when they aren't played, and even when they are, it is pretty laid back. We do powerpoint for the song lyrics, but also we announce the hymn number if the song is in the hymnbook. The people I go to church with are not prone to spontaneous outbursts during worship....pretty typically midwestern in that regard. I dress up when I go to church and feel that is disrespectful not to do so. However, we have a battered women's shelter across the street from us, and when those ladies come to our church with their kids, I never want them to feel that they aren't dressed well enough. So I can see the reason for latitude in dress.....not because "it doesn't matter", but because it very well might matter to someone who is new to the congregation. I usually wear a skirt or nice crop pants, but occasionally in the winter if I am not singing or playing, I will wear something that I would wear to work.....not dressy, but not jeans either. What everyone else wears really runs the gamut, maybe slightly skewed away from jeans, but it is rare to see a suit or a dressy dress.

My preference for worship is that there is music that causes me to reflect and get my mind focused and ready for the sermon, which to me is the whole point. I don't like it when a service (or a portion of it) becomes about itself instead of about God.

Sally

[SuzySunshine]

Julia, I would be very surprised if they changed everything to Latin - though with the recent "orders" I can see your concern.

My dad's family is split on the latin versus post-vatican II. My grandparents and all my aunts belong to a latin church and send their kids to segregated schools. My dad and all of his brothers went the other way and attend post-vatican II churches. But we've been exposed to the latin mass for several occassions such as funerals and weddings, it in interesting but I agree with you I don't want it to become permanent.

[planet]

I'm not Catholic so obviously I don't know how this works, but I did hear a report about the Latin Mass that made it sound like Latin Mass is now something parishoners can request and petition for, not something that is mandated. I guess it wasn't allowed before?? :huh:

[SuzySunshine]

I'm not Catholic so obviously I don't know how this works, but I did hear a report about the Latin Mass that made it sound like Latin Mass is now something parishoners can request and petition for, not something that is mandated. I guess it wasn't allowed before?? :huh:

Previously, ie a few weeks ago, (and other Catholics feel free to correct me) but I beleive the Latin masses could not be said in post-vatican II churches. The way you tell the difference is whether or not the priest can stand behind the altar. Now, you are correct, if there is enough demand the traditional latin mass can be said if the parish agrees.

So yes, it can be requested, but what I feel some Catholics fear is that it will become the standard, not the request. Since the Pope is the Pope until he dies its hard to say what he's going to do next.

Well it looks like I have quite the differant experiance with churches. My family is Catholic if you go back in generations, but my grandparents left the Catholic church in the 70's and thus my family is now non-denomination bent, though the extended family is still Catholic. My Dad and his family got way weary of the Catholic masses in Latin, the Catholic schools everyone went to and so forth so they all split and went the total other direction. Now my family is composed of people going to churches that are split from a large denominational church in St. Louis, and several family members now work for Joyce Meyer Ministry. My family is much more into the charismatic movement, I am not as my dad never was, and I see SO much made up religon in it- (holy laughter, really come on... anyone see that in the Bible?) . My Dad went the route of the Jesus movement in California in the 70's and lived there in a sort of commune experiance with Calvary Chapel, a few years before I was born. The movement grew and came coast to coast. I grew up in a Calvary church where it was Bible at it's basic, no one is a member cause there is no membership, it's music derived from the Jesus movement, or Jesus Freaks as they were called. (Second Chapter of Acts and other such groups from "the day"). Everyone was casual, ala reminiscent of the hippee days where folk in California would come in off the streets to worship in whatever was in the free bin at Salvation army.




But my dad married a crazy Baptist and I'm pretty sure that was part of his depression, to go from a laid back approach to church to the Southern Baptist approach, one steeped in tradtions, doctrine and theology, the exact opposite of how Calvary Chapel started, with the Jesus movement. I went to Christian schools until highschool and went to several differant Baptist churches, and my middle school was WAY nuts - ala men do not wear apparal of women (so to them that meant only a watch and wedding band was permitted for any male "adornment") , women the same which meant even to a basket ball game I had to wear culots (HURL) which had to special made cause no one sold them... or a dress/skirt another hurl. I hated it, though I didn't go to the church I was forced to go to weekly services during school time...where it was apparantly permissable for the speaker giving the sermon to make fun other other Christian sects... In adulthood I have gone to a Four Square Church, non-denominational, Presbiterian, and growing up I've visited all kinds. True to my roots I don't like to be tied down to a certain theology cause they are all flawed if you take them in the total package - all have good and bad no matter the denomination, I don't ever want to be a member - why when I don't know if I'll be there in a year and really what's the point :huh: I like the relaxed service, where singing is NOT out of a hymn book, don't get me wrong I see the beauty of hymns, just not out of HAVING to sing only hymns = boring.... sorry we are talking of personal likes and dislikes... I hate charismatic churches, where I accidently visited one two weeks ago, where a woman told the pastor several people had the following ailments and would they please come forward - a woman w/a tumor, a man w/a left knee w/muscle torn, and others... Oh and the pastor said if it's close come up cause the way he way God is if it's close take the healing.... Um, so let me get this straight you believe in God, but a God who gets things wrong sometimes???? HURL HURL HURL, I wanted to jump out of the window, than compiled with other weird things.... I like music a/an austical bent to it, not a rock show bent, and one where the music is varied.

I don't care about church denomitions and what they are doing (the big wigs who have quarter conferences and so forth about what the denomiation is doing), but about the church I am going to and how it is run and the pastor is teaching, cause that is what is most important.

So was that long enough of an opinion Lily?

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I would say I come down on the more traditionalist side but to me it all comes down to authenticity.

For example, the church in which I grew up was always a traditional Presbyterian service with traditional hymns and the whole lot. Five years ago they added a contemporary service with video screens and a live band, etc. and I just hated it. It felt phony in a traditional, conservative church setting.

The church I attend now in Boston (more for it's convenient location and friendliness than anything else), is extremely contemporary with a band, music, dancing, etc. The music and the sermons are translated into different languages, people dance in the aisles based on how their homes churches were and I love it. I don't dance because we didn't do that growing up but that's the beauty of it; you do what is right for you.

I think what I didn't care for in the first setting is that EVERYONE was faking it - no one came from a church that was contemporary before, they just made themselves that way. In the new church, it's organic because the people are so diverse and it just resonates a lot more with people to see everyone worshipping in their own way.

Perhaps that's just babbling but I think it makes sense to me.