What is this?

So not to spiral off into tangents...

This was a while ago but I was catching up on a thread and forgot to ask. For some reason while on the tram I've remembered!

@North East Quine mentioned "Messy Church" on the Family Mass thread. What is it and why is it messy?

Comments

  • Perhaps it's best described in its own words:

    https://www.messychurch.brf.org.uk/

    FWIW, my local parish church holds Messy Church on one Sunday afternoon per month, and it involves families/parents/guardians etc. etc. for whom Sunday mornings - or perhaps the Sunday morning Eucharist or Service of the Word (they alternate) - are not viable.

    I'm sure other posters will have their own experiences, knowledge, and thoughts on the subject.

    AIUI, it's not restricted to the C of E, but is found in most mainstream denominations.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited July 3
    Messy Church.

    I have no firsthand experience, so someone else will need to provide that. I’m aware of at least a few places in the US where it can be found.

    ETA: Sorry, cross-posted with @Bishops Finger.


  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thank you both. Very interesting.
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    Our Curate (now Associate Vicar) started a Messy Church a few years ago. It starts with various activities including art & craft and science experiments that follow a theme which is often (but not always) based on the lectionary readings. This is followed by an act of worship including songs and afterwards we all sit down for a meal. We are fortunate that we have a couple in our congregation who are professional chefs and they give up their time to do this.

    It grew very fast and we now have up to 600 people attending. As many of these people aren’t regular (or even irregular) worshippers at the church, this a a great form of outreach and evangelism.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    I ran one for years and loved it. The hardest battle was convincing the Kirk Session that it was “real” church, not a gateway to Sunday morning - though that happened for some. Messy communion was one of the most profound experiences - especially when, as sometimes happened, a child reached out to help him or herself to more bread or juice. And we also did Messy baptisms. (Which we’re not in themselves messy - no water all over the floor etc!)
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    I helped to run one very similar though we did not call it Messy Church. It was called KFC, where K = the name of the village, so K Family Church.
    It grew organically as parents/ grandparents/ carers arrived to collect their children from an after-school club held in church, and seemed reluctant to go home. So we started KFC, once a month, with games, crafts, a short service, and a meal, not necessarily in that order. It had input from Methodists and Anglicans, a musician and a primary teacher, and other volunteers.
    There was no set charge, but we calculated the cost of the meal, displayed it, and without fail enough money was donated.

    Eventually it folded as children moved school, leaders moved on, but for a few years it was Church for a number of families.
  • @Puzzler makes a good point - there are a number of initiatives which are very like Messy Church, but don't use that name.

    @Spike - 600 people attending? Or is that a typo for 60?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    A video explaining Messy Church. https://youtu.be/36J3bOtdQLw
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Personally I think Messy Church is the antithesis of everything that's good about church, but I also would have felt like this when I was a child. I do think that some churches assume all children want the same things.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    And here is the Canadian website: https://messychurch.ca/
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 4
    Horses for courses.

    Messy Church works for some places, it seems. At my local church, the numbers at monthly MC equal those at the weekly Sunday morning service. AIUI, they feel that two smallish congregations are better than just one !

    There is some crossover - the Messy Church people are responsible for the Crib Service on Christmas Eve, and there are sometimes Baptisms (usually in the Sunday morning Eucharist) of children from Messy Church. There may be other occasions at which the two congregations meet - certainly, some of those who help at MC are morning *regulars* anyway.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    We have not had a regular Messy Church program, though we have incorporated parts of it on a seasonal basis.
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus

    @Spike - 600 people attending? Or is that a typo for 60?

    No, not a typo. We have a large church building (sometimes mistaken for a small cathedral) so with all the chairs removed it gives us loads of space. Even so, it still takes a lot of organising and lots of helpers, and we are extremely grateful to our two professional chefs who are used to cooking for that number of people
  • Spike wrote: »

    @Spike - 600 people attending? Or is that a typo for 60?

    No, not a typo. We have a large church building (sometimes mistaken for a small cathedral) so with all the chairs removed it gives us loads of space. Even so, it still takes a lot of organising and lots of helpers, and we are extremely grateful to our two professional chefs who are used to cooking for that number of people

    Very impressive!
    :grin:
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Indeed. Wow.

    Thank you all for sharing. It is interesting to hear of different ways people gather and worship.
  • The RogueThe Rogue Shipmate
    We run Messy Church once a month on a Sunday. It is a joint venture between the Methodist and Anglican churches in our town and was held in the morning at the Methodist Church whose usual congregation joined the Anglicans. It is now in the afternoon so we find other reasons to hold joint morning services. Many people attend who don't come to other services which is a good thing, especially as some (adults and young people) do then get more involved in the churches.

    The whole thing is craft-based which is fine if you like that kind of thing and the assumption seems to be that all children do.

    We once had the baptism of an older child at Messy Church and once the vicar had done the formal bits everyone was given a water pistol to round it off.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Our vicar’s final Parish Communion service included the baptism of two children from a Messy Church family. As one was aged 11 or 12, her sponsor was the Church Family Worker. Very encouraging sign.
  • That has happened more than once in my local church, and it is indeed encouraging.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    I can probably take a guess but I may be wrong... What is a Church Family Worker?
  • Climacus wrote: »
    I can probably take a guess but I may be wrong... What is a Church Family Worker?

    They can be found in various denominations, but this job description (for the United Reformed Church) is, I think, fairly representative:

    https://christianjobs.co.uk/sites/default/files/2019-05/Job Description Updated - Children and Families Worker -2_0.pdf

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Personally I think Messy Church is the antithesis of everything that's good about church, but I also would have felt like this when I was a child. I do think that some churches assume all children want the same things.

    It is not about assuming all children want to do the same things, it is about making it available to families who would be interested in it. Messy church is not just about kids. It is designed to be intergenerational. Many families are finding they do not have enough time as a family unit. Not only can parents and kids can participate in the program, but retired people can also be involved like teaching younger generations new skills.

    But, as you say, not everyone will be interested. Still, where two or three are gathered together in His name...
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    Personally I think Messy Church is the antithesis of everything that's good about church, but I also would have felt like this when I was a child. I do think that some churches assume all children want the same things.

    It is not about assuming all children want to do the same things, it is about making it available to families who would be interested in it. Messy church is not just about kids. It is designed to be intergenerational. Many families are finding they do not have enough time as a family unit. Not only can parents and kids can participate in the program, but retired people can also be involved like teaching younger generations new skills.

    But, as you say, not everyone will be interested. Still, where two or three are gathered together in His name...

    OK but in reality, it is just about kids and a specific kind of activity aimed at kids. What new skills in cutting and sticking are retired people teaching in Messy Church?
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    You don’t get it. The activities are not the point, the point is the conversations that’s happen around them, which start, usually, with the Bible passage under consideration, but can go anywhere. You may be making a rainbow, or a pyramid of marshmallows and cocktail sticks, but you are not doing it in silence. That is why adults with no children often attend, for the conversations, for being seen and heard, for finding people who will listen to them, and maybe pray with or for them. And the great thing is that it is the ordinary church members, or the other adults (or kids - kids understand kids very well) who do this. When I, as clergy, was running Messy Church, these conversations did not come my way so often as they did with some of my team of helpers.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I think what it consists of and how it goes will depend quite a lot on the individual church and its dynamics. The very small church local to me has it, and it's a small, low-key thing. Games and crafts, very relaxed, and people can just chat or do their own thing. More people attend than those who attend church.

    There's also now a thing called Bubble Church.
  • Gill HGill H Shipmate
    That sounds like the group we had in the 70s at my church! We always had the birthday bell which we rang for birthdays with a little song. I actually found the bell recently, it’s my grandfather’s air raid warden one.
  • fineline wrote: »
    I think what it consists of and how it goes will depend quite a lot on the individual church and its dynamics. The very small church local to me has it, and it's a small, low-key thing. Games and crafts, very relaxed, and people can just chat or do their own thing. More people attend than those who attend church.

    There's also now a thing called Bubble Church.

    I see there's a *Bubble Church* in Our Town, meeting one Sunday a month at 1pm. Interesting - thanks for the link @fineline !

    Our Place has a monthly Saturday afternoon/evening (530pm-730pm) *Youth Club*, which incorporates much of what Messy Church does, BUT it does not AFAIK have any input from parents/grandparents/carers. It is at a low ebb - sometimes only one or two children turn up (the age range is 7-16, but, in effect, is 7-11) - and could do with a rethink. Messy Church might be an answer, but not necessarily the only one.

    Unfortunately, the couple who started and run it brook no interference, and everything MUST be done as they decree, with anyone so bold as to suggest something different being told in no uncertain terms that, if they think they can do better, they can go ahead and take over...
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited 1:16PM
    Cathscats wrote: »
    You don’t get it. The activities are not the point, the point is the conversations that’s happen around them, which start, usually, with the Bible passage under consideration, but can go anywhere. You may be making a rainbow, or a pyramid of marshmallows and cocktail sticks, but you are not doing it in silence. That is why adults with no children often attend, for the conversations, for being seen and heard, for finding people who will listen to them, and maybe pray with or for them. And the great thing is that it is the ordinary church members, or the other adults (or kids - kids understand kids very well) who do this. When I, as clergy, was running Messy Church, these conversations did not come my way so often as they did with some of my team of helpers.

    There is though the phenomenon I’ve experienced in two very rural churches (ie churches that already didn’t have a service every week) where one of the services they did have was replaced with Messy Church, to which no one new went, because there was no demand.

    One church I know has persisted with this for over 10 years now, accepting the drop in total congregation that week from 16 over 50s to about 4, and those 4 are ‘normal’ congregants attending through gritted teeth because ‘my parish church right or wrong’*

    I’ve got no problem with it where it’s meeting a need, but I’ve seen it now in multiple situations where it isn’t. Where it isn’t, get rid.

    *one of whom, in his 80s, once described Messy Church in the local pub as the ‘monthly punishment beating’ but he couldn’t bring himself to be honest with the vicar.

  • @betjemaniac said:

    I’ve got no problem with it where it’s meeting a need, but I’ve seen it now in multiple situations where it isn’t. Where it isn’t, get rid.

    This.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    As someone with a phobia of puppets (which I recognise is my own thing), Bubble Church sounds even worse. Surely puppets are even more prone to being done badly? I can't help but think of the John Mulaney bit....

    I have zero problem with children being in services, it's creating separate congregations within a church that rubs me the wrong way. The church gathered as one community should be the goal imo, splitting off into separate groups feels like missing the point.

    If the conversations aren't caused by the crafts they can surely happen anywhere. Also, is it a good thing to make conversations the focus of a church service rather than the Eucharist? Conversations are all well and good but you can have them after church.
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    I'm someone for whom splitting into small groups and being able to talk and interact within them makes church a lot more accessible. For me, it doesn't stop the whole church being a community, but makes it easier to process the community and my place within it. Though I don't attend messy church myself, so I'm talking about other models. I'm very in favour of making church accessible to very different people. I realise that some ways can make some uncomfortable, but then there are plenty of church formats that make me uncomfortable, and I don't have a problem with their existence per se.
  • AravisAravis Shipmate
    I can’t see a problem with separate congregations within a church. They probably aren’t completely separate anyway; there will be some people who like both styles who attend both, and others who will attend for the sake of being with a friend or family member.
    I do agree that not all children prefer the informal messy style, as not all adults prefer more formal services - so it’s good that this is called “Messy Church” rather than being designated a children’s service.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Also, is it a good thing to make conversations the focus of a church service rather than the Eucharist? Conversations are all well and good but you can have them after church.
    I think the point is that things like messy church are designed for people who are put off or not drawn to Traditional Ways of Doing Church.

    One size does not need to fit all.

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    Also, is it a good thing to make conversations the focus of a church service rather than the Eucharist? Conversations are all well and good but you can have them after church.
    I think the point is that things like messy church are designed for people who are put off or not drawn to Traditional Ways of Doing Church.

    One size does not need to fit all.

    Sure, but then why the need to insist that it's still real church? To me that feels like trying to have it both ways. Something run by the church can be achieving good things with outsiders while still pointing them to the gathered church community. The problem is with creating a whole new community that generally is entirely separate. This is also like pretending it's not aimed at (neurotypical) kids when it overwhelmingly is.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Aravis wrote: »
    I can’t see a problem with separate congregations within a church. They probably aren’t completely separate anyway; there will be some people who like both styles who attend both, and others who will attend for the sake of being with a friend or family member.
    I do agree that not all children prefer the informal messy style, as not all adults prefer more formal services - so it’s good that this is called “Messy Church” rather than being designated a children’s service.

    It is unfortunately overwhelmingly attended by entirely separate congregations, in my experience. It's also very much aggressively advertised as effectively kids' holiday club (what I think Americans would call vacation Bible school) outside of school holidays. I'm sure it wasn't concieved as that as an idea, but in my experience the primary outreach is at primary schools.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    I'm someone for whom splitting into small groups and being able to talk and interact within them makes church a lot more accessible. For me, it doesn't stop the whole church being a community, but makes it easier to process the community and my place within it. Though I don't attend messy church myself, so I'm talking about other models. I'm very in favour of making church accessible to very different people. I realise that some ways can make some uncomfortable, but then there are plenty of church formats that make me uncomfortable, and I don't have a problem with their existence per se.

    I have no problems with splitting into small groups per se, you can do this without making it the focus of the service.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited 6:30PM
    Pomona wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    Also, is it a good thing to make conversations the focus of a church service rather than the Eucharist? Conversations are all well and good but you can have them after church.
    I think the point is that things like messy church are designed for people who are put off or not drawn to Traditional Ways of Doing Church.

    One size does not need to fit all.

    Sure, but then why the need to insist that it's still real church? To me that feels like trying to have it both ways.
    Because it is “real church,” or at least it can be. The attitude that church is only “real” if we do it a certain way is deadly—particularly if that way is really nothing more than “the way we’ve always done it.” And, I would say, unfaithful.

    And it’s particularly problematic when people who’ve never attended a style of service are judging that style of service to be “not real church.” It’s one thing to say “it doesn’t sound like something I would like.” But if one has never participated in or observed it, how can one possibly judge it to be “not real church”?


  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    For what it's worth, I fully recognise my own aesthetic/musical (because I know Messy Church will involve action songs) snobbery here and I own that. But I do also have actual theological misgivings about Messy Church.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Daughter helped start a Pub Church a couple of years ago. Once a month, a group of Christians who enjoy a brew now and then come together to raise a frothy one and s have a discussion about one of the pericopes. Lasts about an hour. Has attracted the interest of another of other people who share the pub.

    Point is, as mentioned before, no one medium meets the needs of all. One reason why there was a Great Division, and then a Reformation, and the rise of denominationalism. What unites us is not how we do things but whom we confess.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I fully recognise my own aesthetic/musical (because I know Messy Church will involve action songs) snobbery here and I own that.
    Also fwiw, I would have those same reservations—and I’d call it “preferences” rather than “snobbery.” Everyone gets to have preferences.

    But I do also have actual theological misgivings about Messy Church.
    And I can get that, at least up to a point. I’m all on board with the traditional “marks” of the church in Reformed understanding: the church is founded wherever the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. (Some would add and discipline is rightly exercised.)

    That said, I try not to let any misgivings I may have about something like Messy Church lead me to making judgments about whether it is or isn’t “real church.” I do so partly because I know my opinion may be not only based on biases but also on misunderstanding or incomplete information. I also do so because if Messy Church is actually welcoming someone on behalf of Christ and creating community centered around Christ, who am I to argue? Wherever two or three are gathered . . . .


  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I fully recognise my own aesthetic/musical (because I know Messy Church will involve action songs) snobbery here and I own that.
    Also fwiw, I would have those same reservations—and I’d call it “preferences” rather than “snobbery.” Everyone gets to have preferences.

    But I do also have actual theological misgivings about Messy Church.
    And I can get that, at least up to a point. I’m all on board with the traditional “marks” of the church in Reformed understanding: the church is founded wherever the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. (Some would add and discipline is rightly exercised.)

    That said, I try not to let any misgivings I may have about something like Messy Church lead me to making judgments about whether it is or isn’t “real church.” I do so partly because I know my opinion may be not only based on biases but also on misunderstanding or incomplete information. I also do so because if Messy Church is actually welcoming someone on behalf of Christ and creating community centered around Christ, who am I to argue? Wherever two or three are gathered . . . .


    I don’t disagree with any of that, but in my admittedly limited experience of the past 20 years Messy Church is the only thing that gets provided whether *anyone* wants it or not.

    Where people want it, absolutely no problem at all, but I’ve seen the effects (actually I’ve been part of it) of congregations gritting their teeth through a format no one wants *for over a decade* because the incumbent felt that one day some children or indeed adults that want that sort of thing would turn up. Which they didn’t.*

    *village church in a benefice of 7 churches, 250 inhabitants, count the U18s on one hand.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    By the way, I do get that messy church is all age rather than just for the U18s but being positive, I do think Messy Church is an easier sell when there are *any* children to lead the way.

  • Looking back to the Good Old Days when some churches were able to hold more than one service on a Sunday, there were often several congregations who rarely met - 8am, 11am, 3pm (Children's Church/Sunday School), and 630pm!

    I'm referring here to the C of E, though no doubt there were other denominations with 11am and 630pm services whose congregations were largely separate.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    For what it's worth, I fully recognise my own aesthetic/musical (because I know Messy Church will involve action songs) snobbery here and I own that.
    Also fwiw, I would have those same reservations—and I’d call it “preferences” rather than “snobbery.” Everyone gets to have preferences.

    But I do also have actual theological misgivings about Messy Church.
    And I can get that, at least up to a point. I’m all on board with the traditional “marks” of the church in Reformed understanding: the church is founded wherever the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. (Some would add and discipline is rightly exercised.)

    That said, I try not to let any misgivings I may have about something like Messy Church lead me to making judgments about whether it is or isn’t “real church.” I do so partly because I know my opinion may be not only based on biases but also on misunderstanding or incomplete information. I also do so because if Messy Church is actually welcoming someone on behalf of Christ and creating community centered around Christ, who am I to argue? Wherever two or three are gathered . . . .


    I don’t disagree with any of that, but in my admittedly limited experience of the past 20 years Messy Church is the only thing that gets provided whether *anyone* wants it or not.

    Where people want it, absolutely no problem at all, but I’ve seen the effects (actually I’ve been part of it) of congregations gritting their teeth through a format no one wants *for over a decade* because the incumbent felt that one day some children or indeed adults that want that sort of thing would turn up. Which they didn’t.*
    And that is indeed a problem. It strikes me as very problematic to impose it as the only option rather than to offer it as one option.

    And I think I’ve said this already, but to be clear, I’ve never encountered Messy Church in real life. I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered an American church that offered it, though I know there are some. So what I know about it is purely from reading about it.


  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    If I were to go to a Messy Church, I'd probably bring my sketchbook and draw the people, figure sketches and portraits, rather than whatever craft people were doing. I'd unlikely do the action songs, though I might sketch people doing them. If they sang a hymn I liked, I'd join in. For me, it's not snobbery, because I don't consider myself superior to others who have different preferences. It's my personal taste, and I would hope and imagine the concept of Messy Church could incorporate different preferences. There might be some kids who prefer to read a book and be among everyone without interacting - I would have loved this opportunity as a kid.

    As for 'proper church' and theological misgivings, I guess that comes down to whether you think God requires the Eucharist to be part of every church service - or indeed every get-together of Christians. Whether it needs to be weekly, or can be once a fortnight or once a month, or even not at all. I personally don't see any reason to believe God requires it every week, nor that it is the only way to worship God, though I am aware this can be an unpopular view here in this particular community of Ship of Fools! It's something I've talked about in other threads here and am not really interested in a big debate right now, though others may be, and I wonder if it would go better in Purgatory. But to me, from my understanding of God and the Bible, church is the people (including retired people! Not sure why they were mentioned in particular as evidence of the pointlessness of paper crafts! :lol: ), worship can be very varied, and God looks at the heart.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited 7:44PM
    fineline wrote: »
    If I were to go to a Messy Church, I'd probably bring my sketchbook and draw the people, figure sketches and portraits, rather than whatever craft people were doing. I'd unlikely do the action songs, though I might sketch people doing them. If they sang a hymn I liked, I'd join in. For me, it's not snobbery, because I don't consider myself superior to others who have different preferences. It's my personal taste, and I would hope and imagine the concept of Messy Church could incorporate different preferences. There might be some kids who prefer to read a book and be among everyone without interacting - I would have loved this opportunity as a kid.

    As for 'proper church' and theological misgivings, I guess that comes down to whether you think God requires the Eucharist to be part of every church service - or indeed every get-together of Christians. Whether it needs to be weekly, or can be once a fortnight or once a month, or even not at all. I personally don't see any reason to believe God requires it every week, nor that it is the only way to worship God, though I am aware this can be an unpopular view here in this particular community of Ship of Fools! It's something I've talked about in other threads here and am not really interested in a big debate right now, though others may be, and I wonder if it would go better in Purgatory. But to me, from my understanding of God and the Bible, church is the people (including retired people! Not sure why they were mentioned in particular as evidence of the pointlessness of paper crafts! :lol: ), worship can be very varied, and God looks at the heart.

    Well there is a further ‘proper church’ problem, and remember given what I’m about to write that I’ve said repeatedly that I’m fine with Messy Church where people want it, but this remains technically true…:

    The Church of England has the Book of Common Prayer 1662, and it has Common Worship. Those are (in the former case) the Authorised, and (in the latter case) the authorised services,

    In neither will you find Messy Church. So, in a strictly legalistic sense, if one is CofE… draw your own conclusions!

    And that is merely ‘is this an authorised service?’ never mind ‘is this a Eucharist?’

    See also ‘Cafe Church’

    I think I’ve read somewhere that where they are offered they are to be offered ‘as well as’ authorised services, rather than instead. And I think - someone will correct me - that strictly speaking they (Messy Church and Cafe Church) *shouldn’t* be counted in the returns of annual number of church services for a buildings. Because legally they’re not services in the CofE.

    Though as I say I may be wrong and even if right I suspect that’s a can of worms…
  • finelinefineline Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Yes, I agree, for some denominations, this will present an issue due to how their particular rulebook, as it were, defines/prescribes worship, or a service, or whatever wording they use. I don't see this as a theological issue, but of course some will.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited 8:27PM
    I don't know how Messy Church fits into this, but the C of E seems to have invented something called *Greenhouse* to take in what IIRC used to be called Fresh Expressions Of Church:

    https://www.churchofengland.org/about/fresh-expressions-church-england

    Presumably, anything included in this scheme is *authorised*.

    Messy Church, of course, is not confined to the Church of England.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited 8:44PM
    I do wonder sometimes about a Church that ties itself in knots over what you can and can’t do - ie ‘is it in Common Worship including the BCP?’ to stop people using eg 1928, then produces a load of other stuff that clearly should fall at the same hurdle!
Sign In or Register to comment.