I take my Kindle to church as it's got my Bible on. I need the bigger print. The font in the our pew Bibles is too small and the large print Bibles are jealously hoarded by those who got there first.
Although this seems like something that should be addressed - most congregations aren't growing younger.
Many churches now put a recording (audio or video) of their sermons onto their websites. Some provide transcripts as well; I prefer these as it's much quicker to read than to listen, however I recognise that some will say that sermons are primarily an auditory (and communal) experience.
Again, slightly off the point!
Given modern technology, it might be interesting to ask what an AI-generated summary of your sermon recordings would look like.
Some of the transcripts are being created using speech recognition - so similar issues crop up - for instance whenever biblical (and thus unfamiliar) place/people names are mentioned.
What will people do if the technology fails big-time, and all of a sudden there are no mobile phones, electricity, or internet?
Rev T puts his order of service and sermon notes on his iPad. Except when he's doing a wedding or a funeral. Then he uses paper. Just in case.
I take my Kindle to church as it's got my Bible on. I need the bigger print. The font in the our pew Bibles is too small and the large print Bibles are jealously hoarded by those who got there first.
My tablet has a couple of Bible versions on it with translations I prefer, and gives me the opportunity to see the context of the given reading, which in any case is on the screen only briefly.
I did the notes thing after my evangelical conversion during my student days, mainly I think because other people seemed to be doing it.
I very rarely looked at the notes afterwards and soon abandoned the practice.
I used to mark passages in my Bible too, I think but don't remember rightly. I was a bit taken aback when I found that a good Protestant friend still did that.
I'm not saying it's 'wrong'. It just feels alien to me now.
I may make the odd note during a talk at an ecumenical or other conference, but usually in the form of a reference to look up later or a book recommendation or a bon-mot that the speaker may have used.
If I were a preacher I think I'd find it very distracting if people were making notes during the sermon.
We tend to go in for short homilies rather than Protestant-style expository preaching in Orthodoxy, and I do miss that and feel we could find a place for it.
It's often felt that the Liturgy 'speaks for itself' and I do believe that to be the case, although given the very low level of catechesis in many Orthodox settings I do think we need to 'do better.'
I've noticed that some of the Romanians who attend our parish follow the Liturgy in prayer books printed in their own language. Our services are in English but with the Lord's Prayer said in several languages.
I don't find that distracting at all. I'm pleased they do. I must confess that I find the actions of occasional attenders and, dare I say it, 'culturally Orthodox' or fairly nominal folk rather distracting - particularly at Easter.
We had instances of drunken and rowdy behaviour this year, of people heckling the priest, disrespecting our neighbours, parking across people's drives or blocking roads. We even had a group that 'jumped the gun' and started a particular Romanian hymn that isn't supposed to be sung until after the climax of the Easter Vigil.
It was actually quite hairy at times.
It puts mild irritation at minor breaches of protocol into perspective.
As the saying goes, 'You can find both Heaven and Hell on Mount Athos.'
If I were a preacher I think I'd find it very distracting if people were making notes during the sermon.
We tend to go in for short homilies rather than Protestant-style expository preaching in Orthodoxy, and I do miss that and feel we could find a place for it.
ISTM that if your talk/homily/sermon is heavy on the didactic element you have to accept that some people are going to be taking notes at least some of the time.
Some churches have their liturgies or orders of service online, tablets or phones being used by some ministers leading worship, and some congregations are being encouraged to bring their devices to church to save money on booklets or printed sheets of paper.
This happened in the church I attended today. A discussion afterwards led to some expressions of horror- where would this lead? Sending texts or doing crosswords during the sermon? Checking up on the preacher’s sources?
Useful or potential distraction?
I saw people reading non liturgical ( even secular) works and doing puzzles during the Liturgy of the Word/ sermon long before tech devices were a thing
If I were a preacher I think I'd find it very distracting if people were making notes during the sermon.
We tend to go in for short homilies rather than Protestant-style expository preaching in Orthodoxy, and I do miss that and feel we could find a place for it.
ISTM that if your talk/homily/sermon is heavy on the didactic element you have to accept that some people are going to be taking notes at least some of the time.
I've taken, on my Sundays off my organ bench, or other feast days, to going to Mass at larger RC churches. I now have the Order of Mass downloaded on my phone for these times as it's rare to get a printed version at any of the places I've gone to!
Last time I did this, the charming elderly lady at the other end of the pew to me was clearly scandalised by my use of my phone during Mass and got quite cross, in a tutting kind of way, when I briefly responded to a buzz on the phone. (Blood sugars alert - I have all notifications on silent except these ones.)
I do get the school of thought that I could just listen to the liturgy, as I do the prayers and readings, but it's much better if I do have the printed liturgy so that I don't automatically join in loud and clear with the Common Worship, Church of England, Anglican version of the words with which I am currently most familiar. I have to do the same when I'm on holiday in Scotland at Piskie services, though as that was my home for five years, albeit over 20 years ago now, I can switch into the differences in the liturgy words more easily.
The average age of our congregation is fairly young for the Church in Wales, particularly as we aren’t at the evangelical end. We do have a modern building.
Liturgy and hymns are displayed on a screen, though we do also have some service books and hymn books available for anyone who wants them, and there is nearly always an organist (though it’s a useful option for the congregation to be able to sing along to a screen recording if all the organists are away; there are three of us, but two of us are from the same household).
I always write sermons on my iPad (and am happy to email copies to anyone who requests them, as they sometimes do) and some people do readings from their phones. There is wifi available in church.
I don’t think anyone particularly minds in our church if someone checks a phone message during the service, though I don’t think it happens much.
Is copyright an issue when using screens or recordings?
Apparently so. As I mentioned upthread, last week I was singing with a visiting choir in Salisbury Cathedral and we were told we weren’t allowed to use phones or tablets for copyright reasons
Some of the comments above bring up the argument that using paper printed service booklets is a wasteful resource. For printed service booklets I would argue that this is a better use of a resource than an electronic devise. For a one off special service e.g. Easter stations of the Cross, yes a service specific printing is required. However for 99% of C of E services there is a set format so booklets for Advent communion services to take one example, once printed can be used for several years.
A practical point; take baptisms which usually take place at the back of the church so even if the church has electronic display screens they are on the wrong place for use and do we want every one staring at their mobiles to follow the service rather than focusing upon the baptism candidate, their family and the of course the font?
A practical point; take baptisms which usually take place at the back of the church so even if the church has electronic display screens they are on the wrong place for use and do we want every one staring at their mobiles to follow the service rather than focusing upon the baptism candidate, their family and the of course the font?
Do you think the congregation starting at their phones is different from the congregation staring at a paper booklet?
Some of the comments above bring up the argument that using paper printed service booklets is a wasteful resource. For printed service booklets I would argue that this is a better use of a resource than an electronic devise. For a one off special service e.g. Easter stations of the Cross, yes a service specific printing is required. However for 99% of C of E services there is a set format so booklets for Advent communion services to take one example, once printed can be used for several years.
All of that is the case in some denominations, including the CofE. It’s not the case in all denominations/traditions.
It also may be different in different places. In the US, the typical bulletin/service booklet will include things that change every week, like hymns (either reference to a hymnal or the text and music of the hymn), So in those cases, the bulletins can’t be reused week after week, even in traditions where the liturgy is otherwise relatively unchanging.
When I mentioned upthread that I can’t help but think that the bulletins/service booklets produced by some churches each week are environmentally problematic, I specifically mentioned that the churches I had in mind produce bulletins/service booklets that can be 20+ pages every week. Those churches I have in mind are liturgical churches, but the bulletins/service booklets include everything—bits that change week to week, full texts of Scripture readings, hymns (music and text, even though there are hymnals in the pews), bits of the liturgy that change depending on the day as well as the bits that don’t.
A practical point; take baptisms which usually take place at the back of the church . . . .
In our church, we basically project all the words required by the congregation onto a screen, with a small number of paper copies available - 3 or 4 sides of A4. Notices are sent round by email on Fridays and announced verbally on Sundays, we did print a few copies but no-one took them. Admittedly we're not a big church, but this works for us.
I do print out the Bible readings for the lectors. This is partly because we don't necessarily use the same Bible version each time; more because I have seen too many people fumble with pages or struggle with tiny print in their own Bibles, even when a lectern Bible is provided and bookmarked.
We have hymn books and a dozen or so laminated cards with Mass responses etc for visitors. Newsletters are e-mailed out to most folks and a couple of dozen are printed for people who aren't on-line.
We are trying to be a green parish, so take paper waste seriously.
Interestingly, I've noticed a few Orthodox priests reading prayers off phones at non-eucharistic services recently.
I've seen lay people use them at shrines and so on, to look up the kontakion or troporia associated with whichever Saint is commemorated.
It's all down to custom and context.
The use of these devices doesn't appear distracting in the setting @Aravis describes, presumably because people are accustomed to it.
I can see how it would jar in a CofE christening/baptism, but not in contexts which conduct baptisms differently, such as @Heavenlyannie's where the baptistery - whether 'fixed' or temporary, is placed in a different part of the building.
I must confess that I really don't like seeing screens, drumkits in perspex boxes and associated paraphernalia in ancient and venerable church buildings. I find it inappropriate and disrespectful.
I would have no objection though to seeing them in a modern building or a 'community church' or Baptist, 'new church' or independent Christian fellowship of whatever kind.
Yes, I know that's an aesthetic judgement rather than a purely theological or ecclesiological one but there we are.
I've started a thread in Purgatory on 'consumerism' in worship to explore some of these issues - to which I am not immune.
I don't particularly mind modern features in ancient buildings, so long as they don't detract from, say, the altar. Those churches that have blocked off the altar behind a stage trouble me.
I don't particularly mind modern features in ancient buildings, so long as they don't detract from, say, the altar. Those churches that have blocked off the altar behind a stage trouble me.
Those churches probably wouldn't regard the Lord's Table as an altar, but ISWYM.
A priest I know recounted (with some wry amusement) how a formerly Anglo-Catholic church near his home had moved their statue of Our Lady to make room for a drum kit. IIRC, the parish had not descended to below the floorboards, but was diversifying its worship...
I don't particularly mind modern features in ancient buildings, so long as they don't detract from, say, the altar.
It seems to me that there’s a tendency among those who don’t particularly like screens to assume the worst about how screens are used in older buildings. Older buildings and older styles of architecture can certainly make placement of screens more challenging, but I’ve seen it done in ways in such churches that the screens blend in unobtrusively, and one really doesn’t notice them when they’re not in use. We don’t have screens in our older, neo-Gothic-inspired place, but I can easily imagine how they could be installed without obstructing anything and without becoming focal points.
I don't particularly mind modern features in ancient buildings, so long as they don't detract from, say, the altar. Those churches that have blocked off the altar behind a stage trouble me.
There are Rules - a Grade 1 listed church I know had to have a drop down screen which, when not in use, was virtually invisible behind a transverse beam. The projector was at the back of the church with a very long throw. This of course wouldn't work with digital screens.
I don't particularly mind modern features in ancient buildings, so long as they don't detract from, say, the altar. Those churches that have blocked off the altar behind a stage trouble me.
Yes, me too. I've also seen churches where they haven't exactly blocked the altar from view entirely but where they've got a dirty great big drum kit in front of it within a hideous perspex box.
I doubt these churches use the 'high altar' during worship even at their more traditional services, which is up to them of course. The 'churchmanship' may have changed over the years.
But it still strikes me as disrespectful to plonk a hideous perspex box in front of it containing a drumkit that, by all accounts, isn't even played that well when it is used.
In the interests of balance, and I'm looking at my own parish here, I also don't like it when Orthodox parishes adapt a building that was once owned by a different Christian church and don't respect its particular features when putting in an icon-screen or other fixtures and fittings associated with Orthodox worship.
But we are getting away from phones and screens and onto other potential distractions. Perhaps I ought to add inconsiderate Orthodox fixtures and fittings to my thread on distractions within our own particular traditions ...
If you put all the words only on a screen, you are excluding people who have trouble reading them at a distance. Either way, you exclude the illiterate. If you insist that people stand at times, you are excluding those who find that difficult. It is difficult to avoid excluding someone.
I don't understand why some people want to have the whole text of a liturgy in front of them, whether on paper or on an electronic screen. Worshippers in liturgical churches should be well used to the form of the liturgy and have responses off by heart. Where liturgy is less prescribed and consists largely of extemporary prayers, there is no need for a text anyway. I don't much care whether the words of hymns are on (discreetly positioned) screens, or on books or paper, but please let the liturgy speak for itself! You don't go to the theatre and spend the whole time following the script.
I don't particularly mind modern features in ancient buildings, so long as they don't detract from, say, the altar.
It seems to me that there’s a tendency among those who don’t particularly like screens to assume the worst about how screens are used in older buildings. Older buildings and older styles of architecture can certainly make placement of screens more challenging, but I’ve seen it done in ways in such churches that the screens blend in unobtrusively, and one really doesn’t notice them when they’re not in use. We don’t have screens in our older, neo-Gothic-inspired place, but I can easily imagine how they could be installed without obstructing anything and without becoming focal points.
I'm largely indifferent as regards screens - we have one primarily because we don't have a resident minister and rely on worship being led virtually most of the time and secondarily because we use recorded music and having the words on screen helps with timing. It's off to one side and behind the communion table on the opposite side to the pulpit and lectern.
Oddly enough, our church's newsletter this week asks for donations of old iPads "that could be used by the youth for worship." I have no idea what that looks like.
I don't understand why some people want to have the whole text of a liturgy in front of them, whether on paper or on an electronic screen. Worshippers in liturgical churches should be well used to the form of the liturgy and have responses off by heart. Where liturgy is less prescribed and consists largely of extemporary prayers, there is no need for a text anyway. I don't much care whether the words of hymns are on (discreetly positioned) screens, or on books or paper, but please let the liturgy speak for itself! You don't go to the theatre and spend the whole time following the script.
If it's a responsive psalm, I put up all the words (with mine in a lighter, smaller font).
If it's a prayer which is mostly "me" but has parts for the congregation to join in, I'll just "cue" their bits with the previous sentence.
I don't understand why some people want to have the whole text of a liturgy in front of them, whether on paper or on an electronic screen. Worshippers in liturgical churches should be well used to the form of the liturgy and have responses off by heart. Where liturgy is less prescribed and consists largely of extemporary prayers, there is no need for a text anyway. I don't much care whether the words of hymns are on (discreetly positioned) screens, or on books or paper, but please let the liturgy speak for itself! You don't go to the theatre and spend the whole time following the script.
Depends on your hearing, ability to process sound neurologically (mine's not that great), and the speaking ability of the person who is talking at the moment. I lip read a lot of the time, and I've done so forever. My disabilities are invisible, most of them.
There's also the question--do you want or expect to have converts? Because they will certainly not have the responses by heart, and if you don't provide for them, they will come once, and then slink away in embarrassment. We expect and want converts, and so we make the entrance into the community as easy as possible.
I don't understand why some people want to have the whole text of a liturgy in front of them, whether on paper or on an electronic screen. Worshippers in liturgical churches should be well used to the form of the liturgy and have responses off by heart. Where liturgy is less prescribed and consists largely of extemporary prayers, there is no need for a text anyway. I don't much care whether the words of hymns are on (discreetly positioned) screens, or on books or paper, but please let the liturgy speak for itself! You don't go to the theatre and spend the whole time following the script.
Depends on your hearing, ability to process sound neurologically (mine's not that great), and the speaking ability of the person who is talking at the moment. I lip read a lot of the time, and I've done so forever. My disabilities are invisible, most of them.
There's also the question--do you want or expect to have converts? Because they will certainly not have the responses by heart, and if you don't provide for them, they will come once, and then slink away in embarrassment. We expect and want converts, and so we make the entrance into the community as easy as possible.
The bolded is, in my opinion, the bottom line. And not just potential converts, but younger people trying to learn their way around the liturgy, visiting family or friends. I think these days, it just can’t be taken for granted that “everyone” knows even the most basic aspects of traditional liturgy.
Some visitors also feel quite lost without really being able to follow the whole service, including the parts they don’t say, when they can pick up that people around them know it by heart. Telling them just to listen and let the liturgy speak for itself can come across as unwelcoming or inhospitable.
And I’m going to push back a bit on the theater analogy. The audience at a play is expected to be passive observers and listeners, not participants in the play. By contrast, those gathered for worship are expected and invited to be active participants in the liturgy. If that’s the expectation, then everyone is entitled to have what they need to fully participate. Wasn’t that the idea behind the Book of Common Prayer to start with—to put the liturgy in the vernacular and in everyone’s hands? I don’t ever recall anyone complaining that the BCP was a problem because it gave everyone the whole text of the liturgy.
One of the societies which support Anglo-Catholic parishes in the C of E produces a very neat booklet with the text of the Eucharist (Common Worship Order One with the usual minor Catholic variations). It's well set-out, with everything the congregation needs, and allows the priest to insert seasonal bits and pieces as appropriate.
Our Place doesn't use it, alas!, although I did try to introduce it once upon a time. Given that some of our people don't have English as their first language, but are familiar with the general outline of the Western churches' liturgy, it seemed to me to be a useful substitute for the over-blown and very wordy booklets cooked up by Father F***wit about 10 years ago...
There could be special occasions when a separate, bespoke, booklet might be needed, of course, but the one I've described would suffice for most Sundays and weekdays.
I don't understand why some people want to have the whole text of a liturgy in front of them, whether on paper or on an electronic screen. Worshippers in liturgical churches should be well used to the form of the liturgy and have responses off by heart.
...and how do such worshippers get to the point where they have learned the responses by heart?
OK. Let me clarify and slightly backtrack then. I sympathise with those like LambChopped who need support with disabilities. I also see the need for visitors or new members to have access to the text of unfamiliar words. And churches with predominantly word-based worship will have different priorities anyway.
But I'm thinking of churches like our own, liturgical, eucharist-centred. We are Anglican but I am sure most Lutheran churches are similar and of course RC and Orthodox. The liturgy is not just words but action. We take part in the liturgy not just by saying and hearing words but by gesture, movement, and changes of posture. Some people and some traditions will find this distracting, but many of us find this helpful and important.
So while some form of script (booklet or screen) will be helpful for many and essential for a few, they should not be the be all and end all. A culture of ramming books into the hands of everyone willy nilly, of announcing page numbers or such pointless introductions as 'Today's collect is for the Umpteenth Sunday of Boringtide' distract from the real action of the liturgy. Words should be like the menu, not the meal itself. And before someone says it, yes, we come to hear the Word of God, but it is the Word proclaimed and made flesh, not the comparatively pale words on a page.
We Orthodox make few concessions for newcomers and anyone unfamiliar with the Liturgy.
We just get on with it and people either eventually 'get' it or they don't.
That said, I'm sure there are ways we could maintain the integrity of our liturgical practices without dumbing things down in the way some 'seeker-friendly' services do elsewhere.
I said some. Not all.
I still haven't a clue what's going on sometimes in Orthodox worship and I only 'got' it in the first place because I knew a fair bit of church history and was familiar with the shape of the Anglican liturgy.
It's fair to say that most people who find their way into Orthodoxy from the outside do so after a fair bit of research, not always from reliable sources.
Do I think we could do better? Yes, most certainly.
The thing is, whether we use hymn-books, projectors, screens, service sheets or get on with the Liturgy and hope people will 'catch' it, the fact remains that most people are 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
We pick it up from other people.
It's who we are as well ascwhat we do. Authenticity is the key whether there's a choir intoning the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or a worship band leading congregational singing with words projected on a screen.
That's not to say these things are indifferent or not important, but it is to say that it's by our deeds and example rather than what tech we do or don't use.
If we are a toxic congregation then that will apply whether we have tech or not. If we are welcoming community however flawed then that will become apparent also.
But I'm thinking of churches like our own, liturgical, eucharist-centred. We are Anglican but I am sure most Lutheran churches are similar and of course RC and Orthodox. The liturgy is not just words but action. We take part in the liturgy not just by saying and hearing words but by gesture, movement, and changes of posture. Some people and some traditions will find this distracting, but many of us find this helpful and important.
But the (American) Episcopal Church is Anglican, and most parishes use the 1978 Book of Common Prayer, which is in the pews, and for which announcements like “the service begins/continues on page x” are regularly given. So there’s a very liturgical—in terms of word and action—church that puts the full liturgy, including rubrics, in everyone’s hands.
A culture of ramming books into the hands of everyone willy nilly, of announcing page numbers or such pointless introductions as 'Today's collect is for the Umpteenth Sunday of Boringtide' distract from the real action of the liturgy.
The culture in the US is that hymnals are in the pews/seats, often in racks, at all times. In some churches (such as Lutheran churches), those hymnals are also service books with the liturgy. And as I said, in Episcopal churches, the BCP will also be in the pews. The “Episcopal juggle” of prayer book, hymnal and maybe Bible is well-known.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard such an announcement about the collect for the Umpteenth Sunday. But I’ve regularly seen bulletins/service booklets that note “The Collect [or Prayer] of the Day.”
I wonder if there may be some Pond differences at work. For reference, here is a sample bulletin of the kind I’m talking about from an Episcopal church. And here is one from a Lutheran church.
But the (American) Episcopal Church is Anglican, and most parishes use the 1978 Book of Common Prayer, which is in the pews, and for which announcements like “the service begins/continues on page x” are regularly given. So there’s a very liturgical—in terms of word and action—church that puts the full liturgy, including rubrics, in everyone’s hands.
I'll note here that I find the heavy signposting often used ("Our service continues on page 355 of the red Book of Common Prayer that you'll find in your pew") to be a bit distracting. But it appears to be the way of things.
But the (American) Episcopal Church is Anglican, and most parishes use the 1978 Book of Common Prayer, which is in the pews, and for which announcements like “the service begins/continues on page x” are regularly given. So there’s a very liturgical—in terms of word and action—church that puts the full liturgy, including rubrics, in everyone’s hands.
I'll note here that I find the heavy signposting often used ("Our service continues on page 355 of the red Book of Common Prayer that you'll find in your pew") to be a bit distracting. But it appears to be the way of things.
I’ll note that I find it distracting too. But it is indeed the way of things in my experience.
I should have added that many in my tribe have their own heavy signposting that drives me to distraction, such as “Please rise in body or spirit and join me in the ______, which you will find printed in the bulletin.”
Where it’s printed in the bulletin will invariably have an “*,” which the bulletin notes at the top is an invitation to stand. But except for hymns, many Presbyterians seem unwilling to stand or uncertain if they really should stand unless and until invited to do so. If I am in a position to lead such a part of the service, I simply gesture for people to stand and then move straight into what’s printed in the bulletin.
I'm not too fussed about the stand/sit stuff, which most people will pick up even if they were raised by wolves--simply by seeing/hearing the people around them do it. And hand gestures are pretty unobtrusive, which is what we usually get.
Generally speaking, the more books you have to juggle, the more someone is going to have to verbally announce "We continue on page such and such of the red hymnal" or similar. If you print it all out in a bulletin, you kill trees but prevent the heavy use of such instructions. Screens also prevent the heavy use of such instructions, but you leave yourself vulnerable to the tech-of-the-day who may be daydreaming when the moment to move the slide forward comes.
Basically, you know your situation and your people's needs, and try to meet them as best you can. And if those who have been there longest have to bear patiently with those who are newbies, or children, or disabled, well, the Lord smiles at such patience.
Basically, you know your situation and your people's needs, and try to meet them as best you can. And if those who have been there longest have to bear patiently with those who are newbies, or children, or disabled, well, the Lord smiles at such patience.
An aside - why is it that so many (Anglican) churches which have produced their own service booklets either add extra bits or leave bits out? - traps for the unwary!
An aside - why is it that so many (Anglican) churches which have produced their own service booklets either add extra bits or leave bits out? - traps for the unwary!
Because those Anglican vicars who haven't got a model railway to play with, love playing around on their computers searching for 'extra bits' (authorised or not) wherever they can find them. When they've done that they search for the most ornate or naff typefaces they can find to display their collection – the more the merrier.
What I meant was that churches produce their own bespoke booklets - but, on the day of service, add or subtract bits (usually without saying so). Of course, Everybody Knows the bits that are added or left out - the visitor doesn't!
Sure. In our parish we often leave things out. Nobody notices.
I only know because I've attended services elsewhere.
I can't speak for Anglican parishes but as well as the reasons @angloid gives, I imagine there may also be practical reasons such as time considerations etc.
Heck, in Orthodox circles if we did everything at a monastic level we'd die of exhaustion or starvation before the end of the services.
As an aside, and following a train of thought suggested by @Baptist Trainfan's post, to what extent does it matter if the visitor is unaware of what's been added or left out?
(Waits for the sky to fall in ...)
If the visitor is some kind of liturgy geek then they'll notice. If they aren't then they'll remain blissfully unaware.
Most visitors are only going to get an impressionistic impression at best, as it were.
'They sang and clapped ...', 'They crossed themselves ...', 'They bowed and knelt at certain points ...', 'I liked the sermon', 'I didn't like the sermon' ... or whatever it might be.
I'm thinking of places where the church produces a printed liturgy, but in the service itself either "jumps" a paragraph or adds in an extra one, to the confusion of the uninitiated.
Comments
Although this seems like something that should be addressed - most congregations aren't growing younger.
Some of the transcripts are being created using speech recognition - so similar issues crop up - for instance whenever biblical (and thus unfamiliar) place/people names are mentioned.
My tablet has a couple of Bible versions on it with translations I prefer, and gives me the opportunity to see the context of the given reading, which in any case is on the screen only briefly.
I very rarely looked at the notes afterwards and soon abandoned the practice.
I used to mark passages in my Bible too, I think but don't remember rightly. I was a bit taken aback when I found that a good Protestant friend still did that.
I'm not saying it's 'wrong'. It just feels alien to me now.
I may make the odd note during a talk at an ecumenical or other conference, but usually in the form of a reference to look up later or a book recommendation or a bon-mot that the speaker may have used.
If I were a preacher I think I'd find it very distracting if people were making notes during the sermon.
We tend to go in for short homilies rather than Protestant-style expository preaching in Orthodoxy, and I do miss that and feel we could find a place for it.
It's often felt that the Liturgy 'speaks for itself' and I do believe that to be the case, although given the very low level of catechesis in many Orthodox settings I do think we need to 'do better.'
I've noticed that some of the Romanians who attend our parish follow the Liturgy in prayer books printed in their own language. Our services are in English but with the Lord's Prayer said in several languages.
I don't find that distracting at all. I'm pleased they do. I must confess that I find the actions of occasional attenders and, dare I say it, 'culturally Orthodox' or fairly nominal folk rather distracting - particularly at Easter.
We had instances of drunken and rowdy behaviour this year, of people heckling the priest, disrespecting our neighbours, parking across people's drives or blocking roads. We even had a group that 'jumped the gun' and started a particular Romanian hymn that isn't supposed to be sung until after the climax of the Easter Vigil.
It was actually quite hairy at times.
It puts mild irritation at minor breaches of protocol into perspective.
As the saying goes, 'You can find both Heaven and Hell on Mount Athos.'
ISTM that if your talk/homily/sermon is heavy on the didactic element you have to accept that some people are going to be taking notes at least some of the time.
I saw people reading non liturgical ( even secular) works and doing puzzles during the Liturgy of the Word/ sermon long before tech devices were a thing
That'll be when you need the Mass of solar ejection liturgy
There is that, yes.
Last time I did this, the charming elderly lady at the other end of the pew to me was clearly scandalised by my use of my phone during Mass and got quite cross, in a tutting kind of way, when I briefly responded to a buzz on the phone. (Blood sugars alert - I have all notifications on silent except these ones.)
I do get the school of thought that I could just listen to the liturgy, as I do the prayers and readings, but it's much better if I do have the printed liturgy so that I don't automatically join in loud and clear with the Common Worship, Church of England, Anglican version of the words with which I am currently most familiar. I have to do the same when I'm on holiday in Scotland at Piskie services, though as that was my home for five years, albeit over 20 years ago now, I can switch into the differences in the liturgy words more easily.
Liturgy and hymns are displayed on a screen, though we do also have some service books and hymn books available for anyone who wants them, and there is nearly always an organist (though it’s a useful option for the congregation to be able to sing along to a screen recording if all the organists are away; there are three of us, but two of us are from the same household).
I always write sermons on my iPad (and am happy to email copies to anyone who requests them, as they sometimes do) and some people do readings from their phones. There is wifi available in church.
I don’t think anyone particularly minds in our church if someone checks a phone message during the service, though I don’t think it happens much.
Yes, but CCLI does have appropriate licences.
A practical point; take baptisms which usually take place at the back of the church so even if the church has electronic display screens they are on the wrong place for use and do we want every one staring at their mobiles to follow the service rather than focusing upon the baptism candidate, their family and the of course the font?
Do you think the congregation starting at their phones is different from the congregation staring at a paper booklet?
It also may be different in different places. In the US, the typical bulletin/service booklet will include things that change every week, like hymns (either reference to a hymnal or the text and music of the hymn), So in those cases, the bulletins can’t be reused week after week, even in traditions where the liturgy is otherwise relatively unchanging.
When I mentioned upthread that I can’t help but think that the bulletins/service booklets produced by some churches each week are environmentally problematic, I specifically mentioned that the churches I had in mind produce bulletins/service booklets that can be 20+ pages every week. Those churches I have in mind are liturgical churches, but the bulletins/service booklets include everything—bits that change week to week, full texts of Scripture readings, hymns (music and text, even though there are hymnals in the pews), bits of the liturgy that change depending on the day as well as the bits that don’t.
Not in many traditions, including mine.
I do print out the Bible readings for the lectors. This is partly because we don't necessarily use the same Bible version each time; more because I have seen too many people fumble with pages or struggle with tiny print in their own Bibles, even when a lectern Bible is provided and bookmarked.
We are trying to be a green parish, so take paper waste seriously.
I've seen lay people use them at shrines and so on, to look up the kontakion or troporia associated with whichever Saint is commemorated.
It's all down to custom and context.
The use of these devices doesn't appear distracting in the setting @Aravis describes, presumably because people are accustomed to it.
I can see how it would jar in a CofE christening/baptism, but not in contexts which conduct baptisms differently, such as @Heavenlyannie's where the baptistery - whether 'fixed' or temporary, is placed in a different part of the building.
I must confess that I really don't like seeing screens, drumkits in perspex boxes and associated paraphernalia in ancient and venerable church buildings. I find it inappropriate and disrespectful.
I would have no objection though to seeing them in a modern building or a 'community church' or Baptist, 'new church' or independent Christian fellowship of whatever kind.
Yes, I know that's an aesthetic judgement rather than a purely theological or ecclesiological one but there we are.
I've started a thread in Purgatory on 'consumerism' in worship to explore some of these issues - to which I am not immune.
Those churches probably wouldn't regard the Lord's Table as an altar, but ISWYM.
A priest I know recounted (with some wry amusement) how a formerly Anglo-Catholic church near his home had moved their statue of Our Lady to make room for a drum kit. IIRC, the parish had not descended to below the floorboards, but was diversifying its worship...
Yes, me too. I've also seen churches where they haven't exactly blocked the altar from view entirely but where they've got a dirty great big drum kit in front of it within a hideous perspex box.
I doubt these churches use the 'high altar' during worship even at their more traditional services, which is up to them of course. The 'churchmanship' may have changed over the years.
But it still strikes me as disrespectful to plonk a hideous perspex box in front of it containing a drumkit that, by all accounts, isn't even played that well when it is used.
In the interests of balance, and I'm looking at my own parish here, I also don't like it when Orthodox parishes adapt a building that was once owned by a different Christian church and don't respect its particular features when putting in an icon-screen or other fixtures and fittings associated with Orthodox worship.
But we are getting away from phones and screens and onto other potential distractions. Perhaps I ought to add inconsiderate Orthodox fixtures and fittings to my thread on distractions within our own particular traditions ...
I'm largely indifferent as regards screens - we have one primarily because we don't have a resident minister and rely on worship being led virtually most of the time and secondarily because we use recorded music and having the words on screen helps with timing. It's off to one side and behind the communion table on the opposite side to the pulpit and lectern.
If it's a responsive psalm, I put up all the words (with mine in a lighter, smaller font).
If it's a prayer which is mostly "me" but has parts for the congregation to join in, I'll just "cue" their bits with the previous sentence.
Depends on your hearing, ability to process sound neurologically (mine's not that great), and the speaking ability of the person who is talking at the moment. I lip read a lot of the time, and I've done so forever. My disabilities are invisible, most of them.
There's also the question--do you want or expect to have converts? Because they will certainly not have the responses by heart, and if you don't provide for them, they will come once, and then slink away in embarrassment. We expect and want converts, and so we make the entrance into the community as easy as possible.
Some visitors also feel quite lost without really being able to follow the whole service, including the parts they don’t say, when they can pick up that people around them know it by heart. Telling them just to listen and let the liturgy speak for itself can come across as unwelcoming or inhospitable.
And I’m going to push back a bit on the theater analogy. The audience at a play is expected to be passive observers and listeners, not participants in the play. By contrast, those gathered for worship are expected and invited to be active participants in the liturgy. If that’s the expectation, then everyone is entitled to have what they need to fully participate. Wasn’t that the idea behind the Book of Common Prayer to start with—to put the liturgy in the vernacular and in everyone’s hands? I don’t ever recall anyone complaining that the BCP was a problem because it gave everyone the whole text of the liturgy.
Our Place doesn't use it, alas!, although I did try to introduce it once upon a time. Given that some of our people don't have English as their first language, but are familiar with the general outline of the Western churches' liturgy, it seemed to me to be a useful substitute for the over-blown and very wordy booklets cooked up by Father F***wit about 10 years ago...
There could be special occasions when a separate, bespoke, booklet might be needed, of course, but the one I've described would suffice for most Sundays and weekdays.
...and how do such worshippers get to the point where they have learned the responses by heart?
But I'm thinking of churches like our own, liturgical, eucharist-centred. We are Anglican but I am sure most Lutheran churches are similar and of course RC and Orthodox. The liturgy is not just words but action. We take part in the liturgy not just by saying and hearing words but by gesture, movement, and changes of posture. Some people and some traditions will find this distracting, but many of us find this helpful and important.
So while some form of script (booklet or screen) will be helpful for many and essential for a few, they should not be the be all and end all. A culture of ramming books into the hands of everyone willy nilly, of announcing page numbers or such pointless introductions as 'Today's collect is for the Umpteenth Sunday of Boringtide' distract from the real action of the liturgy. Words should be like the menu, not the meal itself. And before someone says it, yes, we come to hear the Word of God, but it is the Word proclaimed and made flesh, not the comparatively pale words on a page.
We just get on with it and people either eventually 'get' it or they don't.
That said, I'm sure there are ways we could maintain the integrity of our liturgical practices without dumbing things down in the way some 'seeker-friendly' services do elsewhere.
I said some. Not all.
I still haven't a clue what's going on sometimes in Orthodox worship and I only 'got' it in the first place because I knew a fair bit of church history and was familiar with the shape of the Anglican liturgy.
It's fair to say that most people who find their way into Orthodoxy from the outside do so after a fair bit of research, not always from reliable sources.
Do I think we could do better? Yes, most certainly.
The thing is, whether we use hymn-books, projectors, screens, service sheets or get on with the Liturgy and hope people will 'catch' it, the fact remains that most people are 'socialised' into the Kingdom.
We pick it up from other people.
It's who we are as well ascwhat we do. Authenticity is the key whether there's a choir intoning the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or a worship band leading congregational singing with words projected on a screen.
That's not to say these things are indifferent or not important, but it is to say that it's by our deeds and example rather than what tech we do or don't use.
If we are a toxic congregation then that will apply whether we have tech or not. If we are welcoming community however flawed then that will become apparent also.
The culture in the US is that hymnals are in the pews/seats, often in racks, at all times. In some churches (such as Lutheran churches), those hymnals are also service books with the liturgy. And as I said, in Episcopal churches, the BCP will also be in the pews. The “Episcopal juggle” of prayer book, hymnal and maybe Bible is well-known.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never heard such an announcement about the collect for the Umpteenth Sunday. But I’ve regularly seen bulletins/service booklets that note “The Collect [or Prayer] of the Day.”
I wonder if there may be some Pond differences at work. For reference, here is a sample bulletin of the kind I’m talking about from an Episcopal church. And here is one from a Lutheran church.
I'll note here that I find the heavy signposting often used ("Our service continues on page 355 of the red Book of Common Prayer that you'll find in your pew") to be a bit distracting. But it appears to be the way of things.
Where it’s printed in the bulletin will invariably have an “*,” which the bulletin notes at the top is an invitation to stand. But except for hymns, many Presbyterians seem unwilling to stand or uncertain if they really should stand unless and until invited to do so. If I am in a position to lead such a part of the service, I simply gesture for people to stand and then move straight into what’s printed in the bulletin.
Generally speaking, the more books you have to juggle, the more someone is going to have to verbally announce "We continue on page such and such of the red hymnal" or similar. If you print it all out in a bulletin, you kill trees but prevent the heavy use of such instructions. Screens also prevent the heavy use of such instructions, but you leave yourself vulnerable to the tech-of-the-day who may be daydreaming when the moment to move the slide forward comes.
Basically, you know your situation and your people's needs, and try to meet them as best you can. And if those who have been there longest have to bear patiently with those who are newbies, or children, or disabled, well, the Lord smiles at such patience.
Because those Anglican vicars who haven't got a model railway to play with, love playing around on their computers searching for 'extra bits' (authorised or not) wherever they can find them. When they've done that they search for the most ornate or naff typefaces they can find to display their collection – the more the merrier.
What I meant was that churches produce their own bespoke booklets - but, on the day of service, add or subtract bits (usually without saying so). Of course, Everybody Knows the bits that are added or left out - the visitor doesn't!
I only know because I've attended services elsewhere.
I can't speak for Anglican parishes but as well as the reasons @angloid gives, I imagine there may also be practical reasons such as time considerations etc.
Heck, in Orthodox circles if we did everything at a monastic level we'd die of exhaustion or starvation before the end of the services.
As an aside, and following a train of thought suggested by @Baptist Trainfan's post, to what extent does it matter if the visitor is unaware of what's been added or left out?
(Waits for the sky to fall in ...)
If the visitor is some kind of liturgy geek then they'll notice. If they aren't then they'll remain blissfully unaware.
Most visitors are only going to get an impressionistic impression at best, as it were.
'They sang and clapped ...', 'They crossed themselves ...', 'They bowed and knelt at certain points ...', 'I liked the sermon', 'I didn't like the sermon' ... or whatever it might be.
I'm thinking of places where the church produces a printed liturgy, but in the service itself either "jumps" a paragraph or adds in an extra one, to the confusion of the uninitiated.