Getting back on topic ( ), what hymns are to be sung congregationally at the Coronation?
I certainly may have missed something, but I see two:
“Christ Is Made the Sure Foundation” (to Purcell’s WESTMINSTER ABBEY)
“Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven” (the tune isn’t specified in the program, but I’d guess LAUDA ANIMA)
I'd query whether it's ever appropriate to sing as a hymn something that is not addressed to God or celebrating/advocating expressly Christian values, theology or fellowship.
It's precisely because God save the King is framed as a prayer, that in my view makes it defensible to sing it in Church in a way that Rule Britannia, The Star Spangled Banner, Flower of Scotland and Land of Hope and Glory all are not.
Which is exactly my point. Some National Anthems have content that makes them appropriate to sing in a church (like GSTK), whereas The Star Spangled Banner does not.
Whereas I’d make a distinction between singing in a church and singing as part of a service of worship. I’ll quickly agree that “The Star-Spangled Banner” has no place in the latter.
But in many places, churches and cathedrals play host to community gatherings that aren’t services of worship, as well as to interfaith services and events, or community gatherings that may be a mix of generic prayer/worship and other elements. Whether singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” might be appropriate in such an event or gathering is, I think, a question that probably requires a case-by-case assessment. But I don’t think the mere fact that the event or gathering is in a church rules it out.
FWIW, I don’t dislike “The Star-Spangled Banner” either. But if it were up to me “America the Beautiful” would be the national anthem. (And “God Bless America” would never be heard again.)
It's very hard to define what is and isn't a worship service, especially if even a tiny amount of it involves prayer or a hymn.
Is it really that hard? The “tiny amount” criteria would make a city council meeting or a legislative session a worship service if it opens with prayer.
I would say if the primary reason for gathering or focus of the event is to worship, it’s a worship service. If that’s not the reason for gathering or the main focus, it’s either not a worship service or a poorly constructed worship service, even if it includes some prayers or religious songs.
Coming from a Catholic background, I tend to think of the main sanctuary and chapels of a church as places where the rules for what are and aren't allowed should be different than in parish halls and other parts of a church building. However, not every church is big enough or was built recently enough to have any gathering space other than the main sanctuary.
Whereas I come from a tradition that, while recognizing the some places are set apart for worship and may as a result carry associations with worship, would generally assert that such places are no more holy than any other part of creation. If push came to shove, the view in my tradition would likely be that if a song shouldn’t be sung within the walls of a church it probably shouldn’t be sung anywhere.
@stonespring many Charles Wesley hymns are famously based on pub tunes.
Or so the story goes. But the story may be more famous than accurate, according to this article from the United Methodist Church: “Debunking the Wesley Tavern Song Myth”.
I'd query whether it's ever appropriate to sing as a hymn something that is not addressed to God or celebrating/advocating expressly Christian values, theology or fellowship.
It's precisely because God save the King is framed as a prayer, that in my view makes it defensible to sing it in Church in a way that Rule Britannia, The Star Spangled Banner, Flower of Scotland and Land of Hope and Glory all are not.
Which is exactly my point. Some National Anthems have content that makes them appropriate to sing in a church (like GSTK), whereas The Star Spangled Banner does not.
Whereas I’d make a distinction between singing in a church and singing as part of a service of worship. I’ll quickly agree that “The Star-Spangled Banner” has no place in the latter.
But in many places, churches and cathedrals play host to community gatherings that aren’t services of worship, as well as to interfaith services and events, or community gatherings that may be a mix of generic prayer/worship and other elements. Whether singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” might be appropriate in such an event or gathering is, I think, a question that probably requires a case-by-case assessment. But I don’t think the mere fact that the event or gathering is in a church rules it out.
FWIW, I don’t dislike “The Star-Spangled Banner” either. But if it were up to me “America the Beautiful” would be the national anthem. (And “God Bless America” would never be heard again.)
It's very hard to define what is and isn't a worship service, especially if even a tiny amount of it involves prayer or a hymn.
Is it really that hard? The “tiny amount” criteria would make a city council meeting or a legislative session a worship service if it opens with prayer.
I would say if the primary reason for gathering or focus of the event is to worship, it’s a worship service. If that’s not the reason for gathering or the main focus, it’s either not a worship service or a poorly constructed worship service, even if it includes some prayers or religious songs.
Coming from a Catholic background, I tend to think of the main sanctuary and chapels of a church as places where the rules for what are and aren't allowed should be different than in parish halls and other parts of a church building. However, not every church is big enough or was built recently enough to have any gathering space other than the main sanctuary.
Whereas I come from a tradition that, while recognizing the some places are set apart for worship and may as a result carry associations with worship, would generally assert that such places are no more holy than any other part of creation. If push came to shove, the view in my tradition would likely be that if a song shouldn’t be sung within the walls of a church it probably shouldn’t be sung anywhere.
I think I'd distinguish between "sung in church" and "sung as part of a service".
I'd query whether it's ever appropriate to sing as a hymn something that is not addressed to God or celebrating/advocating expressly Christian values, theology or fellowship.
It's precisely because God save the King is framed as a prayer, that in my view makes it defensible to sing it in Church in a way that Rule Britannia, The Star Spangled Banner, Flower of Scotland and Land of Hope and Glory all are not.
Which is exactly my point. Some National Anthems have content that makes them appropriate to sing in a church (like GSTK), whereas The Star Spangled Banner does not.
Whereas I’d make a distinction between singing in a church and singing as part of a service of worship. I’ll quickly agree that “The Star-Spangled Banner” has no place in the latter.
But in many places, churches and cathedrals play host to community gatherings that aren’t services of worship, as well as to interfaith services and events, or community gatherings that may be a mix of generic prayer/worship and other elements. Whether singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” might be appropriate in such an event or gathering is, I think, a question that probably requires a case-by-case assessment. But I don’t think the mere fact that the event or gathering is in a church rules it out.
FWIW, I don’t dislike “The Star-Spangled Banner” either. But if it were up to me “America the Beautiful” would be the national anthem. (And “God Bless America” would never be heard again.)
It's very hard to define what is and isn't a worship service, especially if even a tiny amount of it involves prayer or a hymn.
Is it really that hard? The “tiny amount” criteria would make a city council meeting or a legislative session a worship service if it opens with prayer.
I would say if the primary reason for gathering or focus of the event is to worship, it’s a worship service. If that’s not the reason for gathering or the main focus, it’s either not a worship service or a poorly constructed worship service, even if it includes some prayers or religious songs.
Coming from a Catholic background, I tend to think of the main sanctuary and chapels of a church as places where the rules for what are and aren't allowed should be different than in parish halls and other parts of a church building. However, not every church is big enough or was built recently enough to have any gathering space other than the main sanctuary.
Whereas I come from a tradition that, while recognizing the some places are set apart for worship and may as a result carry associations with worship, would generally assert that such places are no more holy than any other part of creation. If push came to shove, the view in my tradition would likely be that if a song shouldn’t be sung within the walls of a church it probably shouldn’t be sung anywhere.
I think I'd distinguish between "sung in church" and "sung as part of a service".
Yes, as I said upthread, that’s the distinction I’d draw.
Am I right in thinking that the King himself had a good deal to do with the choice of music? It is known AIUI that he has some considerable knowledge, and wide-ranging tastes.
(Gospel choirs standing still ? Would Be Outrage!!)
The Gospel choir - sang nicely, but a pity they couldn't stand still
Gospels choirs, if they’re doing it right, do not stand still. Expecting them to stand still is, to be honest, imposing cultural norms foreign to the culture of the music and the singers of that music.
Parry, Handel and Gordon Jacob - excellent, right and proper
Mealor, Panufnik and O'Regan - loved it
The Gospel choir - sang nicely, but a pity they couldn't stand still
Debbie Wiseman - what would happen if Stanford and Rutter had a baby
Lloyd Webber - so sweet it would rot your teeth
All very well done, as I would have expected - kudos to Andrew and the choir.
Just my 2p.
The Lloyd Webber was pretty awful and trite, especially in such wonderful company. Some wonderful solo singing, Terfel and Williams excelled. The gospel choir sounded very lightweight, there needed to be more of them.
I find it very weird, I mean shouting "hail to my liege and thane" on the bloody sofa, and hope it doesn't become a Daily Mail thing. My wife suggests bellowing, "long live the Parker-Bowles!" Well, it's more democratic.
Long live the Parker Knoll would be more appropriate for luxury loving couch-potatoes.
What you mean is that most of them were Independents.
My guess would be that most would have been Trinitarian rather than Unitarian but various forms of non-Trinitarianism emerged within the Independent and 'Dissenting' churches from time to time.
What you mean is that most of them were Independents.
My guess would be that most would have been Trinitarian rather than Unitarian but various forms of non-Trinitarianism emerged within the Independent and 'Dissenting' churches from time to time.
The URC has its roots in the Congressional/Independent tradition. The Unitarians mainly evolved from English Presbyterianism. They still have one or two Seventeenth Century Presbyterian Chapels like the one in Liverpool.
I don't know anything like as much about this as I'm sure @Jengie Jon does, but as I understand it, both Baptists and Congregationalists derive from the Independents of the Cromwell period, as did, at that time quite a strong English Presbyterian movement. That was an issue in the late 1640s between Cromwell and the more establishment leaders on the Parliamentary side. After 1660 though, English Presbyterians, largely either blended into the rest of the Independents or conformed. A few English Presbyterians remained so, and eventually joined with most English Congregationalists to form the United Reformed Church ("URC") in 1972.
Baptists and Congregationalists were all Independents for whom congregationalism was inherent to their beliefs about the nature of the church. That didn't apply to Presbyterians. Baptists and Congregationalists didn't really separate from each other until well after the Restoration in 1660. A university friend in the 1960s who later became a Baptist minister told me then that there were still some congregations, mainly in East Anglia and round Bedford, that belonged both to the Baptist Union and what was then the Congregational Church.
Unitarianism only really started to become an issue in Independency until things had settled down a bit in the mid-eighteenth century, when some congregations outraged their fellows by questioning the Trinity.
I don't know anything like as much about this as I'm sure @Jengie Jon does, but as I understand it, both Baptists and Congregationalists derive from the Independents of the Cromwell period, as did, at that time quite a strong English Presbyterian movement. That was an issue in the late 1640s between Cromwell and the more establishment leaders on the Parliamentary side. After 1660 though, English Presbyterians, largely either blended into the rest of the Independents or conformed. A few English Presbyterians remained so, and eventually joined with most English Congregationalists to form the United Reformed Church ("URC") in 1972.
Baptists and Congregationalists were all Independents for whom congregationalism was inherent to their beliefs about the nature of the church. That didn't apply to Presbyterians. Baptists and Congregationalists didn't really separate from each other until well after the Restoration in 1660. A university friend in the 1960s who later became a Baptist minister told me then that there were still some congregations, mainly in East Anglia and round Bedford, that belonged both to the Baptist Union and what was then the Congregational Church.
Unitarianism only really started to become an issue in Independency until things had settled down a bit in the mid-eighteenth century, when some congregations outraged their fellows by questioning the Trinity.
Baptist Churches predate the Commonwealth. Some independent congregations may have become baptist in government and ecclesiology.
The music before the service was wonderful: Pappano and his brilliant band even managed to get Jupiter to sound exciting, no mean feat. The new commissions were all good, the organ piece was exceptional. Of course, none of the TV coverage showed most of it but Radio 3 stepped up to the plate.
The two hymns were fine, particularly Christ is made the sure foundation whose tune, appropriately called 'Westminster Abbey', was written by Purcell.
The Parry, Handel and Walton were breathtaking; the Weelkes, Boyce and Byrd were sublime, and the Orthodox chanting sent a shiver down the spine. All of which set the bar very high for the new commissions, with mixed results.
Paul Mealor's Kyrie was a real hit, ditto the O'Regan Agnus Dei, I'm not sure the Panufnik Sanctus reached the same level but it was very good.
The same cannot be said for Debbie Wiseman's Alleluias: in the more traditional setting they sort of worked, but definitely mediocre - and was it just me who noticed a ghostly echo of When Somebody loves you from Toy Story 2? As for the so-called Gospel version, least said soonest mended: it didn't suit the group who were, in any case, too few in number to achieve any kind of effect - not a happy collaboration.
I don't know anything like as much about this as I'm sure @Jengie Jon does, but as I understand it, both Baptists and Congregationalists derive from the Independents of the Cromwell period, as did, at that time quite a strong English Presbyterian movement. That was an issue in the late 1640s between Cromwell and the more establishment leaders on the Parliamentary side. After 1660 though, English Presbyterians, largely either blended into the rest of the Independents or conformed. A few English Presbyterians remained so, and eventually joined with most English Congregationalists to form the United Reformed Church ("URC") in 1972.
Baptists and Congregationalists were all Independents for whom congregationalism was inherent to their beliefs about the nature of the church. That didn't apply to Presbyterians. Baptists and Congregationalists didn't really separate from each other until well after the Restoration in 1660. A university friend in the 1960s who later became a Baptist minister told me then that there were still some congregations, mainly in East Anglia and round Bedford, that belonged both to the Baptist Union and what was then the Congregational Church.
Unitarianism only really started to become an issue in Independency until things had settled down a bit in the mid-eighteenth century, when some congregations outraged their fellows by questioning the Trinity.
Baptist Churches predate the Commonwealth. Some independent congregations may have become baptist in government and ecclesiology.
Yes. There were estimated to be around 40 Baptist congregations, Most very small, around the London area in 1640.
There seems to have been an upsurge in Independent congregations adopting a believers' Baptism polity during the Commonwealth/Interregnum. Enoch is right, although Baptist churches predate the Civil War (the earliest indigenous ones seem to have emerged around 1607 or so) there was a growth in Baptist activity from mid century onwards.
From what I can gather, there were sporadic outbursts of Unitarianism among English Presbyterians during the 1600s but it was more of an 18th and 19th century thing.
The Independents and Baptists had internal struggles from time to time with various forms of 'Arianism'.
Lots of cross-currents within the 'Dissenting' tradition, some of them forms of 4th and 5th century heresies or at least parallels of them.
So at any one time you'd have a potent and pungent mix of Deism, Wesleyan-influenced revivalism, Anglican-influenced Latitutindarianism, intense 'Black Calvinism', Armininianism, Arianism and apparent Socinianism and Sabellianism all bubbling below the surface.
A university friend in the 1960s who later became a Baptist minister told me then that there were still some congregations, mainly in East Anglia and round Bedford, that belonged both to the Baptist Union and what was then the Congregational Church.
My present church is one such....we belong to URC and Baptist Union.
The Parry, Handel and Walton were breathtaking; the Weelkes, Boyce and Byrd were sublime, and the Orthodox chanting sent a shiver down the spine. All of which set the bar very high for the new commissions, with mixed results.
Paul Mealor's Kyrie was a real hit, ditto the O'Regan Agnus Dei, I'm not sure the Panufnik Sanctus reached the same level but it was very good.
The same cannot be said for Debbie Wiseman's Alleluias: in the more traditional setting they sort of worked, but definitely mediocre - and was it just me who noticed a ghostly echo of When Somebody loves you from Toy Story 2? As for the so-called Gospel version, least said soonest mended: it didn't suit the group who were, in any case, too few in number to achieve any kind of effect - not a happy collaboration.
Which leaves Lloyd Webber... 😱 🤢 🤮
I’ve finally gotten a chance to really listen to the music. (Saturday, I couldn’t turn the volume up very loudly as others in the house were still sleeping, and later in the day could only give half-an-ear.
I guess in some ways I—a trained but not professional musician—am an outlier on some of the commissioned music. While I thought Mealor’s Kyrie was sung beautifully and I really liked that it was in Welsh, I was a bit underwhelmed by the piece itself. I thought it was interesting, but not necessarily in a positive way. It struck me as a bit theatrical (as in movie soundtrack) as opposed to liturgical, perhaps.
On the other hand, I really liked Wiseman’s Alleluias, both versions—though I agree the “Gospel version,” which sounded only minimally Gospel-tinged to me, would have been well-served by a larger ensemble. But I did like it. And it did seem to prompt one of the few full-on smiles I saw during the whole proceedings—when the camera cut from the Gospel choir at the end of the Alleluias, the Princess of Wales could be seen with a very large smile.
The Lloyd Weber was, well, Lloyd Weber. I can pretty easily imagine some church choirs in these parts making it part of their repertoire, but I’ll hope my church choir isn’t one of them.
I found the Panufnik Sanctus captivating and well-suited to the moment, both in terms of the coronation liturgy and of the Eucharistic liturgy. It may have been my favorite of the commissioned pieces. It had, I thought, something of an ethereal quality, and I found it a fresh and meditative treatment of the text in the sense that, unlike many settings, I could imagine a connection with the heavenly choirs. There was a sense of time being suspended, even though it was only about two minutes long.
Ditto the O’Regan Agnus Dei. Beautiful, and the other contender for my favorite commissioned piece.
Did anyone follow along with the service sheet posted online in advance? I noticed a few places where Abp. Welby and others said God in stead of Lord, and at least one where a reference to a Christ at the end of a prayer was left out, and it seemed too much text to leave out accidentally. There were other omissions and places where the text was cut short so I’m not sure what differences with the service sheet were intentional and which were accidental. They made great use of “cue cards” (large index cards) in large text held by another monster in front of them instead of a book to read from, so at least some of the changes were probably intentional?
The substituting God for Lord and omitting the reference to Christ in one prayer might be seen as making a few of the prayers sound more interfaith, although most of the service was explicitly Christian. Does anyone think this might have been a reason for any last minute editing?
Possibly. Or simply human error, in the circumstances?
That would generally be my guess.
That said, I did generally follow along with the liturgy that had been posted online, though not word by word. One change I caught was when the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland said:
“receive this Book,
the most valuable thing that this world has to offer.”
What was printed was:
“receive this Book,
the most valuable thing that this world affords.”
That seemed like the kind of change that would be intentional, although I guess the brain might send the mouth in familiar patterns without regard to what the eyes read.
A couple of times Welby was glaring off to the side, waiting for someone to do something. First time was just before the clerics blessed the King on his throne and his mitre hadnt been brought to him. Second time was after communion when he stood at the altar staring off to his right.
I think it was the bloke in the blue cloak who may have been day dreaming.
The URC has its roots in the Congressional/Independent tradition. The Unitarians mainly evolved from English Presbyterianism. They still have one or two Seventeenth Century Presbyterian Chapels like the one in Liverpool.
There are two in Liverpool! Besides Toxteth there is also one in Gateacre, a suburb in the south eastern corner of the city. Not to mention a wonderful Arts and Crafts church less than a mile from the former.
The URC has its roots in the Congressional/Independent tradition. The Unitarians mainly evolved from English Presbyterianism. They still have one or two Seventeenth Century Presbyterian Chapels like the one in Liverpool.
There are two in Liverpool! Besides Toxteth there is also one in Gateacre, a suburb in the south eastern corner of the city. Not to mention a wonderful Arts and Crafts church less than a mile from the former.
A colleague had her funeral in the Ullet Road church. The building packs a powerful punch. It would seem to be very much alive and kicking as a worshipping community. https://ulletroadchurch.uk/
I think the co-president (representing in his case Pentecostal and charismatic churches) of Churches Together in England who participated in giving the benediction on the King in the coronation is Pentecostal? He was dressed in a cope. We often see non-white Pentecostal ministers and bishops in the US in vestments, but I don’t know if I have ever seen one in a cope.
Does anyone know anything about his church? If he is Bishop Tedroy Powell (I think that is who it was), then he is National Overseer of the Church of God of Prophecy UK. He is also senior pastor of the House of Bread Church of God of Prophecy in London.
I also noticed that when the King and Queen received communion, you could see it on camera. Did Queen Elizabeth II ever allow this?
Also, what do you think of the role given to two female C of E bishops to receive communion along with ABC Welby and the King and Queen and to hold onto the chalice for a moment while Welby gave the King and Queen communion (I’m not sure if one of them ever held the paten). I know the intent was to involve female bishops more in the ceremony but did this role seem trivial? Could they have been involved more?
A couple of times Welby was glaring off to the side, waiting for someone to do something. First time was just before the clerics blessed the King on his throne and his mitre hadnt been brought to him. Second time was after communion when he stood at the altar staring off to his right.
I think it was the bloke in the blue cloak who may have been day dreaming.
There were two such awkward moments during Her Majesty's coronation, but they seemed caused by having the Dean do all the schlepping of objects to and from her place farther from the altar than His Majesty's. I think the oil was needed, then the ring, then the Crown. The Dean couldn't exactly pile these all up to cut it down to one trip.
I also noticed that when the King and Queen received communion, you could see it on camera. Did Queen Elizabeth II ever allow this?
Also, what do you think of the role given to two female C of E bishops to receive communion along with ABC Welby and the King and Queen and to hold onto the chalice for a moment while Welby gave the King and Queen communion (I’m not sure if one of them ever held the paten). I know the intent was to involve female bishops more in the ceremony but did this role seem trivial? Could they have been involved more?
In fairness I think there was an intent to include an awful lot of clerical hands. I think the SEC Primus got to hand over the sceptre, and the Bishop of Edinburgh got roped into a procession for complicated historical reasons.
The late Queen was never photographed or filmed receiving communion.
So is this a big change in terms of how public the reception of communion by the Sovereign and their spouse is (not sure about what Prince Phillip did)? Did Queen Elizabeth II ever receive communion in a place where the public and not just family, friends, and the royal household staff could see her do so, even if it was not photographed or recorded?
IIRC, the late Queen sometimes attended what used to be referred to in parts of the C of E as *The Early Service* - BCP Communion at 8am, with no hymns, but usually including (as per rubric) a short homily.
Few other people would have been present, I guess.
I'm not sure what business this is of anyone, other than the Queen herself.
The late Queen was never photographed or filmed receiving communion.
So is this a big change in terms of how public the reception of communion by the Sovereign and their spouse is (not sure about what Prince Phillip did)?
Time will tell whether it signals a change or is a one-off. Though to say you could see them take Communion on camera is, perhaps, technically accurate but not much more. They were shown from a distance, and at an angle where the King, at least when taking Communion, was only partially visible beyond the Queen. Faces couldn’t really be made out, unless perhaps one was watching on a really big TV. It seemed to me more that I could see that it happened rather than actually seeing it happen, if that makes sense.
The late Queen was never photographed or filmed receiving communion.
So is this a big change in terms of how public the reception of communion by the Sovereign and their spouse is (not sure about what Prince Phillip did)?
Time will tell whether it signals a change or is a one-off. Though to say you could see them take Communion on camera is, perhaps, technically accurate but not much more. They were shown from a distance, and at an angle where the King, at least when taking Communion, was only partially visible beyond the Queen. Faces couldn’t really be made out, unless perhaps one was watching on a really big TV. It seemed to me more that I could see that it happened rather than actually seeing it happen, if that makes sense.
I was watching on a very big TV, and I was very carefully watching to see if it was visible. It looked to me like I could see the King receive (as well as the Queen). And certainly many people in the Abbey could.
Comments
Thanks! Good choices IMHO...
I would say if the primary reason for gathering or focus of the event is to worship, it’s a worship service. If that’s not the reason for gathering or the main focus, it’s either not a worship service or a poorly constructed worship service, even if it includes some prayers or religious songs.
Whereas I come from a tradition that, while recognizing the some places are set apart for worship and may as a result carry associations with worship, would generally assert that such places are no more holy than any other part of creation. If push came to shove, the view in my tradition would likely be that if a song shouldn’t be sung within the walls of a church it probably shouldn’t be sung anywhere.
And since the claim is also often made about Martin Luther, from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: “Did Martin Luther really use tavern tunes in church?”
And, since bar tune/bar form is mentioned as a possible source of confusion, The Wiki on “Bar Form.”
I think I'd distinguish between "sung in church" and "sung as part of a service".
Throw him in the Tower. Call the Met Police - it's a disruption seen by billions.
Quite seemly copes for the clergy, though.
One big difference from the 1953 show, however, is being able to see how colourful it is, in terms of uniforms, robes etc.
All done very well, though (I've been watching on the Guardian live stream, so minus commentary - inaccurate or otherwise!).
It's good to know, as one columnist has said, that Britain can still offer World-Beating Archaic Feudal Flummery...
Then the royalists can pelt him with eggs and see what he feels like.
Byrd and Weelkes - sublime
Parry, Handel and Gordon Jacob - excellent, right and proper
Mealor, Panufnik and O'Regan - loved it
The Gospel choir - sang nicely, but a pity they couldn't stand still
Debbie Wiseman - what would happen if Stanford and Rutter had a baby
Lloyd Webber - so sweet it would rot your teeth
All very well done, as I would have expected - kudos to Andrew and the choir.
Just my 2p.
Am I right in thinking that the King himself had a good deal to do with the choice of music? It is known AIUI that he has some considerable knowledge, and wide-ranging tastes.
(Gospel choirs standing still ? Would Be Outrage!!)
Isn't that redundant? 😈
The Lloyd Webber was pretty awful and trite, especially in such wonderful company. Some wonderful solo singing, Terfel and Williams excelled. The gospel choir sounded very lightweight, there needed to be more of them.
@Nick Tamen speaks to this in the post above the one above yours.
You had to close your eyes because some people were moving while singing? Really? Why is that so scary?
Long live the Parker Knoll would be more appropriate for luxury loving couch-potatoes.
Yes, but most of the Parliamentary regicides where in the URC and the Unitarian Church.
What you mean is that most of them were Independents.
My guess would be that most would have been Trinitarian rather than Unitarian but various forms of non-Trinitarianism emerged within the Independent and 'Dissenting' churches from time to time.
The URC has its roots in the Congressional/Independent tradition. The Unitarians mainly evolved from English Presbyterianism. They still have one or two Seventeenth Century Presbyterian Chapels like the one in Liverpool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxteth_Unitarian_Chapel
I don't know anything like as much about this as I'm sure @Jengie Jon does, but as I understand it, both Baptists and Congregationalists derive from the Independents of the Cromwell period, as did, at that time quite a strong English Presbyterian movement. That was an issue in the late 1640s between Cromwell and the more establishment leaders on the Parliamentary side. After 1660 though, English Presbyterians, largely either blended into the rest of the Independents or conformed. A few English Presbyterians remained so, and eventually joined with most English Congregationalists to form the United Reformed Church ("URC") in 1972.
Baptists and Congregationalists were all Independents for whom congregationalism was inherent to their beliefs about the nature of the church. That didn't apply to Presbyterians. Baptists and Congregationalists didn't really separate from each other until well after the Restoration in 1660. A university friend in the 1960s who later became a Baptist minister told me then that there were still some congregations, mainly in East Anglia and round Bedford, that belonged both to the Baptist Union and what was then the Congregational Church.
Unitarianism only really started to become an issue in Independency until things had settled down a bit in the mid-eighteenth century, when some congregations outraged their fellows by questioning the Trinity.
Baptist Churches predate the Commonwealth. Some independent congregations may have become baptist in government and ecclesiology.
The music before the service was wonderful: Pappano and his brilliant band even managed to get Jupiter to sound exciting, no mean feat. The new commissions were all good, the organ piece was exceptional. Of course, none of the TV coverage showed most of it but Radio 3 stepped up to the plate.
The two hymns were fine, particularly Christ is made the sure foundation whose tune, appropriately called 'Westminster Abbey', was written by Purcell.
The Parry, Handel and Walton were breathtaking; the Weelkes, Boyce and Byrd were sublime, and the Orthodox chanting sent a shiver down the spine. All of which set the bar very high for the new commissions, with mixed results.
Paul Mealor's Kyrie was a real hit, ditto the O'Regan Agnus Dei, I'm not sure the Panufnik Sanctus reached the same level but it was very good.
The same cannot be said for Debbie Wiseman's Alleluias: in the more traditional setting they sort of worked, but definitely mediocre - and was it just me who noticed a ghostly echo of When Somebody loves you from Toy Story 2? As for the so-called Gospel version, least said soonest mended: it didn't suit the group who were, in any case, too few in number to achieve any kind of effect - not a happy collaboration.
Which leaves Lloyd Webber... 😱 🤢 🤮
Yes. There were estimated to be around 40 Baptist congregations, Most very small, around the London area in 1640.
There seems to have been an upsurge in Independent congregations adopting a believers' Baptism polity during the Commonwealth/Interregnum. Enoch is right, although Baptist churches predate the Civil War (the earliest indigenous ones seem to have emerged around 1607 or so) there was a growth in Baptist activity from mid century onwards.
From what I can gather, there were sporadic outbursts of Unitarianism among English Presbyterians during the 1600s but it was more of an 18th and 19th century thing.
The Independents and Baptists had internal struggles from time to time with various forms of 'Arianism'.
Lots of cross-currents within the 'Dissenting' tradition, some of them forms of 4th and 5th century heresies or at least parallels of them.
So at any one time you'd have a potent and pungent mix of Deism, Wesleyan-influenced revivalism, Anglican-influenced Latitutindarianism, intense 'Black Calvinism', Armininianism, Arianism and apparent Socinianism and Sabellianism all bubbling below the surface.
Nothing new under the sun.
I guess in some ways I—a trained but not professional musician—am an outlier on some of the commissioned music. While I thought Mealor’s Kyrie was sung beautifully and I really liked that it was in Welsh, I was a bit underwhelmed by the piece itself. I thought it was interesting, but not necessarily in a positive way. It struck me as a bit theatrical (as in movie soundtrack) as opposed to liturgical, perhaps.
On the other hand, I really liked Wiseman’s Alleluias, both versions—though I agree the “Gospel version,” which sounded only minimally Gospel-tinged to me, would have been well-served by a larger ensemble. But I did like it. And it did seem to prompt one of the few full-on smiles I saw during the whole proceedings—when the camera cut from the Gospel choir at the end of the Alleluias, the Princess of Wales could be seen with a very large smile.
The Lloyd Weber was, well, Lloyd Weber. I can pretty easily imagine some church choirs in these parts making it part of their repertoire, but I’ll hope my church choir isn’t one of them.
I found the Panufnik Sanctus captivating and well-suited to the moment, both in terms of the coronation liturgy and of the Eucharistic liturgy. It may have been my favorite of the commissioned pieces. It had, I thought, something of an ethereal quality, and I found it a fresh and meditative treatment of the text in the sense that, unlike many settings, I could imagine a connection with the heavenly choirs. There was a sense of time being suspended, even though it was only about two minutes long.
Ditto the O’Regan Agnus Dei. Beautiful, and the other contender for my favorite commissioned piece.
The substituting God for Lord and omitting the reference to Christ in one prayer might be seen as making a few of the prayers sound more interfaith, although most of the service was explicitly Christian. Does anyone think this might have been a reason for any last minute editing?
That said, I did generally follow along with the liturgy that had been posted online, though not word by word. One change I caught was when the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland said:
“receive this Book,
the most valuable thing that this world has to offer.”
What was printed was:
“receive this Book,
the most valuable thing that this world affords.”
That seemed like the kind of change that would be intentional, although I guess the brain might send the mouth in familiar patterns without regard to what the eyes read.
I think it was the bloke in the blue cloak who may have been day dreaming.
There are two in Liverpool! Besides Toxteth there is also one in Gateacre, a suburb in the south eastern corner of the city. Not to mention a wonderful Arts and Crafts church less than a mile from the former.
A colleague had her funeral in the Ullet Road church. The building packs a powerful punch. It would seem to be very much alive and kicking as a worshipping community.
https://ulletroadchurch.uk/
Does anyone know anything about his church? If he is Bishop Tedroy Powell (I think that is who it was), then he is National Overseer of the Church of God of Prophecy UK. He is also senior pastor of the House of Bread Church of God of Prophecy in London.
Also, what do you think of the role given to two female C of E bishops to receive communion along with ABC Welby and the King and Queen and to hold onto the chalice for a moment while Welby gave the King and Queen communion (I’m not sure if one of them ever held the paten). I know the intent was to involve female bishops more in the ceremony but did this role seem trivial? Could they have been involved more?
https://cte.org.uk/gensecappointment/
There were two such awkward moments during Her Majesty's coronation, but they seemed caused by having the Dean do all the schlepping of objects to and from her place farther from the altar than His Majesty's. I think the oil was needed, then the ring, then the Crown. The Dean couldn't exactly pile these all up to cut it down to one trip.
Ok. It looks like he was consecrated bishop in the Apostolic Pastoral Congress, a Pentecostal organisation. Does anyone know anything about them?
In fairness I think there was an intent to include an awful lot of clerical hands. I think the SEC Primus got to hand over the sceptre, and the Bishop of Edinburgh got roped into a procession for complicated historical reasons.
So is this a big change in terms of how public the reception of communion by the Sovereign and their spouse is (not sure about what Prince Phillip did)? Did Queen Elizabeth II ever receive communion in a place where the public and not just family, friends, and the royal household staff could see her do so, even if it was not photographed or recorded?
Few other people would have been present, I guess.
I'm not sure what business this is of anyone, other than the Queen herself.