@fineline I would definitely not consider myself to be better than others! I don't think that's an inherent part of snobbery. I may think that others have bad taste (in a purely aesthetic sense) but I don't think this says anything bad about them as a person, or anything superior about me as a person. I like the things I like because I think they're better - I wouldn't like them if I didn't think they were better. It's not because I think I'm better. I also think a lot of "traditional" churches have terrible taste, and I know many would also hate my taste (I love brutalist RC church buildings for eg and a more austere/monastic type of High Churchery as opposed to lots of tat - although I will say that when it's so tat-tastic it goes over into high camp I can appreciate it!).
By "not really church" I meant a service rather than a congregation/ekklesia. I would understand the word "church" as referring to both senses of the term so I should have been clearer. I don't think that every service needs to be a Eucharistic service - I am all for BCP Mattins and Evensong for eg, which are specifically non-Eucharistic - but equally I would not view a discussion group for eg (like the example given of Pub Church) as a church service. The whole of the service is (imo) supposed to be worship, not just any singing. I would be much more inclined to see a Quaker meeting for worship as a church service than Messy Church for example - and theologically speaking I am definitely Not a Quaker.
@pomona 'Snob' is an interesting word, because at one point it meant 'A person who has little or no breeding or good taste; a vulgar or ostentatious person.'
And then morphed into 'A person who admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of higher social status or greater wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance.'
And then 'A person who despises those whom he or she considers to be inferior in rank, attainment, or taste. Frequently in extended sense, with defining word limiting its reference to a particular sphere.'
(Quotes from the OED)
So in the extended sense of the last definition, it can be used for specific things like books or music or tea, but does still carry that sense of despising what is seen as inferior. (I've been called a tea snob in the past, but I say I'm not, because I don't despise the existence of certain teas, nor sneer at the people who drink them. I just merrily go about finding and drinking the tea I personally like.)
Taste is obviously a subjective thing, and equally people can enjoy something even while knowing it's not high art or haute cuisine, for instance. I enjoy good quality wine with a bag of Asda Cheesy Wiggles! And I love going to the opera, and I also love going to see an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical - I know opera has all sorts of subtleties and beauty that Lloyd Webber doesn't have, and I appreciate it on a whole different level, but I love a bit of Joseph fun too! There are also foods and music I don't like - I have no interest in going go to a pop concert, for instance - but to me, the snobbery level would be sneering at those things I don't like and those who like them, rather than simply saying I don't like them.
I suppose with church, I've found throughout my life that I don't seem to be the majority in what I like, and I generally don't fit in. So I am used to new church initiatives being something I probably wouldn't like, and I don't see that as automatically inherently bad. But to me, the more a church allows for and embraces diversity, the better. And to me, that is also about making individuals feel heard, feel valued, as part of the body of Christ. To me, we worship Christ by how we treat each other, as we are part of Christ. In the same way that some nuns bow whenever they pass another nun in the corridor, because each nun is Christ, Christ being in us and us in him.
...and yet, that Church blithely ignores those of its parishes who use the Roman Catholic forms of service in their entirety.
A subject for a Hell thread, maybe?
Indeed - though I'd draw a distinction between individual churches that do what they want while theoretically/occasionally being hit by the centre with 'not in the authorised liturgies - desist', and church central then saying 'here're some things not in the authorised liturgies, why not give them a go?!'
I know we're veering a bit off the subject: but all our church tradition, whether Anglican, Catholic, Reformed or whatever, have evolved over the years and are very different to what "services" would have been like for the early Christians. Arguably the ways of "doing church" varied from place to place - I'd have expected the Jerusalem church to be a sort of "Christian synagogue", while the Corinth one was clearly more free-flowing, charismatic and centred around a meal - indeed Paul had to reign in some of its more extreme elements.
I claim no expertise on the New Testament churches - but I think that their services bore little resemblance to Eucharist at St Agatha's, Family Worship at Anytown Baptist, or even Divine Liturgy at St Nikolaos. Although I'd be extremely surprised to discover that the early churches did "crafting", it could be that their worship style was closer to "Messy Church" than some advocates of "Proper Church" might be comfortable with.
Comments
Indeed it is, and so, to a lesser degree, is the Eucharist.
I was unfamiliar with this and looked it up. I was intrigued by
Can't recall many sermons delivered in adventurous ways myself. Clearly going to the wrong places.
By "not really church" I meant a service rather than a congregation/ekklesia. I would understand the word "church" as referring to both senses of the term so I should have been clearer. I don't think that every service needs to be a Eucharistic service - I am all for BCP Mattins and Evensong for eg, which are specifically non-Eucharistic - but equally I would not view a discussion group for eg (like the example given of Pub Church) as a church service. The whole of the service is (imo) supposed to be worship, not just any singing. I would be much more inclined to see a Quaker meeting for worship as a church service than Messy Church for example - and theologically speaking I am definitely Not a Quaker.
And then morphed into 'A person who admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of higher social status or greater wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance.'
And then 'A person who despises those whom he or she considers to be inferior in rank, attainment, or taste. Frequently in extended sense, with defining word limiting its reference to a particular sphere.'
(Quotes from the OED)
So in the extended sense of the last definition, it can be used for specific things like books or music or tea, but does still carry that sense of despising what is seen as inferior. (I've been called a tea snob in the past, but I say I'm not, because I don't despise the existence of certain teas, nor sneer at the people who drink them. I just merrily go about finding and drinking the tea I personally like.)
Taste is obviously a subjective thing, and equally people can enjoy something even while knowing it's not high art or haute cuisine, for instance. I enjoy good quality wine with a bag of Asda Cheesy Wiggles! And I love going to the opera, and I also love going to see an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical - I know opera has all sorts of subtleties and beauty that Lloyd Webber doesn't have, and I appreciate it on a whole different level, but I love a bit of Joseph fun too! There are also foods and music I don't like - I have no interest in going go to a pop concert, for instance - but to me, the snobbery level would be sneering at those things I don't like and those who like them, rather than simply saying I don't like them.
I suppose with church, I've found throughout my life that I don't seem to be the majority in what I like, and I generally don't fit in. So I am used to new church initiatives being something I probably wouldn't like, and I don't see that as automatically inherently bad. But to me, the more a church allows for and embraces diversity, the better. And to me, that is also about making individuals feel heard, feel valued, as part of the body of Christ. To me, we worship Christ by how we treat each other, as we are part of Christ. In the same way that some nuns bow whenever they pass another nun in the corridor, because each nun is Christ, Christ being in us and us in him.
Indeed - though I'd draw a distinction between individual churches that do what they want while theoretically/occasionally being hit by the centre with 'not in the authorised liturgies - desist', and church central then saying 'here're some things not in the authorised liturgies, why not give them a go?!'
Cakeism. Or more accurately for the CofE, fudge.
I claim no expertise on the New Testament churches - but I think that their services bore little resemblance to Eucharist at St Agatha's, Family Worship at Anytown Baptist, or even Divine Liturgy at St Nikolaos. Although I'd be extremely surprised to discover that the early churches did "crafting", it could be that their worship style was closer to "Messy Church" than some advocates of "Proper Church" might be comfortable with.