@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.
Here is the problem, I think you need to distinguish "What is Church?" for "What is authorised Worship?" The two questions differ in meaning. There is a lot that is Church that is not Authorised Worship, be it coffee hour after worship to the meeting of the finance committee and within those elements of worship may or may not occur.
What is more worship is not confined to the authorised. There may be some home groups somewhere in the Church of England that end their meeting with Evening Prayer according the BCP but I suspect that the majority of occassions where they exist the form of worship is an informal of no particular rite maybe with some flavour of the tradition e.g. in Anglo Catholic you might get a Hail Mary included. Worship exists in all traditions in a much broader and richer former than the authorised worship services. Just look at the variety of Marian devotion that exists within Roman Catholicism for starters. If a demonination is wise it seeks to own these as part of its being the Church.
Seriously, though, I once found myself in a vociferous minority at an ecumenical conference when I objected to the idea of non-eucharistic services being the norm in some Fresh Expressions settings within Anglicanism.
Even some of the Orthodox participants didn't have any issue with it. Perhaps because they hadn't been subjected to action-songs and poster paint.
We have our own 'actions' of course.
Proper ones ... 😉
I am impressed though by those like @Cathscats and @Spike who appear to have made these things work. Alas, I don't think @betjemaniac is alone in his experience of these things.
I know of a semi-rural church where the incumbent had been a street-entertainer before ordination. He entranced the kids in the village primary school with his conjuring tricks and legerdemain and lo and behold many of them came to church bringing their parents with them.
For a time the 'Family Services' were packed. Then he moved away. Numbers reverted pretty much to how they'd been before.
Ok, so I understand that 'Messy Church' and its equivalents are supposed to be 'church' in and of themselves and not a 'gateway' into more traditional services.
But from what I've seen everyone tends to clear off as soon as the kids get too old for poster paints and action-songs.
But then you are talking to a curmudgeonly old git who has a lot of sympathy with the Anglican Archdeacon who said that 'Fresh Expressions' sounds like a new brand of cat litter tray.
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.
Ok, but if by the 'Great Division' you mean the 'Great Schism' of 1054AD (rather than those 500 years earlier), then I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with action-songs and poster paint.
I don't think those were mentioned in Luther's 95 Theses either.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
If I remember rightly, most of those denominational divisions arose over disputes about church government or knotty theological issues rather than particular worship styles and preferences.
It's not as if there was a great deal of difference in worship style, for want of a better phrase, between East and West in the 11th century.
'If anyone uses puppets or poster paint, let them be anathema.'
When I grew up in an Anglican Church of Canada parish in the 1970s, non-eucharistic services were the norm for the main morning service, GG. I long for the return of those days although I have left said parish and church for other reasons.
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.
What is more worship is not confined to the authorised. There may be some home groups somewhere in the Church of England that end their meeting with Evening Prayer according the BCP but I suspect that the majority of occassions where they exist the form of worship is an informal of no particular rite maybe with some flavour of the tradition e.g. in Anglo Catholic you might get a Hail Mary included. Worship exists in all traditions in a much broader and richer former than the authorised worship services. Just look at the variety of Marian devotion that exists within Roman Catholicism for starters. If a demonination is wise it seeks to own these as part of its being the Church.
Seriously, though, I once found myself in a vociferous minority at an ecumenical conference when I objected to the idea of non-eucharistic services being the norm in some Fresh Expressions settings within Anglicanism.
Even some of the Orthodox participants didn't have any issue with it. Perhaps because they hadn't been subjected to action-songs and poster paint.
We have our own 'actions' of course.
Proper ones ... 😉
I am impressed though by those like @Cathscats and @Spike who appear to have made these things work. Alas, I don't think @betjemaniac is alone in his experience of these things.
I know of a semi-rural church where the incumbent had been a street-entertainer before ordination. He entranced the kids in the village primary school with his conjuring tricks and legerdemain and lo and behold many of them came to church bringing their parents with them.
For a time the 'Family Services' were packed. Then he moved away. Numbers reverted pretty much to how they'd been before.
Ok, so I understand that 'Messy Church' and its equivalents are supposed to be 'church' in and of themselves and not a 'gateway' into more traditional services.
But from what I've seen everyone tends to clear off as soon as the kids get too old for poster paints and action-songs.
But then you are talking to a curmudgeonly old git who has a lot of sympathy with the Anglican Archdeacon who said that 'Fresh Expressions' sounds like a new brand of cat litter tray.
I'll get me coat ...
Ok, but if by the 'Great Division' you mean the 'Great Schism' of 1054AD (rather than those 500 years earlier), then I think you'll find that it had nothing to do with action-songs and poster paint.
I don't think those were mentioned in Luther's 95 Theses either.
The only thing you've mentioned that arguably has any bearing on this issue is the rise of denominationalism, largely a 19th century phenomenon.
If I remember rightly, most of those denominational divisions arose over disputes about church government or knotty theological issues rather than particular worship styles and preferences.
It's not as if there was a great deal of difference in worship style, for want of a better phrase, between East and West in the 11th century.
'If anyone uses puppets or poster paint, let them be anathema.'