From time to time, we've been asked to stay on after Mass to listen to an urgent message from the Catholic Bishops or a speaker explaining important policy statements on pastoral issues. Because this involves translators and Q&A, it can take a long time so people do get restless and small children are taken outside.
This was done over a number of Sundays in the 1980s, 1990s, early 2000s when qualified laypeople (medical nurses and doctors) spoke on using contraceptives (condoms) to protect oneself and a partner from HIV+. Because this was a departure from traditional Catholic teaching, the parish priest didn't say anything but remained present and encouraged parishioners to break through the silence and stigma around AIDS by asking questions.
During the pandemic, medical experts spoke to those present in church to explain why the Mass and all church activities would be suspended, and how Communion-givers would visit the sick and dying where possible, how burials and funerals or memorial services would continue with restrictions. Some of those talks went on for up to three hours and nobody moved. On leaving church, parishioners were given masks and hand washing was done outside. Then the church doors were locked and would not open again until Covid vaccinations were made available in South Africa.
Those churches that don’t have a set lectionary are more likely to see the sermon as bringing the word of God to the people.
Where does this come from? What does using the lectionary have to do with it?
I think there is a feeling in non-Lectionary-using churches that "Our Preacher has sought the Lord to give them a message for today" and that the churches which use the Lectionary are less open to that breath of the Spirit. (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with that, by the way).
Conversely I have been in Lectionary-using churches where the preacher ,wanting to make a point about a current issue, horribly and inappropriately shoe-horned the set text into their sermon because they felt they couldn't simply ignore it.
Those churches that don’t have a set lectionary are more likely to see the sermon as bringing the word of God to the people.
Where does this come from? What does using the lectionary have to do with it?
I think there is a feeling in non-Lectionary-using churches that "Our Preacher has sought the Lord to give them a message for today" and that the churches which use the Lectionary are less open to that breath of the Spirit. (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with that, by the way).
Conversely I have been in Lectionary-using churches where the preacher ,wanting to make a point about a current issue, horribly and inappropriately shoe-horned the set text into their sermon because they felt they couldn't simply ignore it.
Bad preaching is always bad preaching, but part of the purpose of the lectionary is to be drawn out of our personal pre-occupations and hobby horses to hear what God is saying through the readings today, to the people gathered in this place. It takes a different approach from deciding what you want to talk about (leaving open the extent to which that decision is divinely inspired) and picking a reading that fits. The lectionary forces both preacher and congregation to wrestle with things they'd rather avoid.
I think there's a balance to be struck. I usually use the Lectionary and value its discipline; but occasionally I go off-piste if I think I must - as I did the Sunday after the current Israel/Palestine began.
While your last sentence is true, there is also the point that, by sticking to the Lectionary, many Bible passages are never used.
Why shouldn't information from an expert in an area of concern be what "God wants the congregation to know"? If so, in what way does that contradict delivering that in the part of a service where one would normally have a sermon?
OK. For several denominations the sermon, as mentioned is central to the service. Not having a sermon would be unthinkable. My old church in London had a speaker in on environmental issues, but we are not the kind of church I am getting at. That said the speaker was thoroughly versed in the theology of the Environment.
While your last sentence is true, there is also the point that, by sticking to the Lectionary, many Bible passages are never used.
For first Sunday services, anyway. If follow a similar scheme for daily prayer you do get a broader range of scripture, but I take the point. I don't think I've often encountered the sequential OT lectionary readings so have missed out on e.g. Ruth. This page lists the OT lectionary readings by book so you can see what is missed, which I found interesting: https://www.crivoice.org/lectionary/lectionlistot.html
Certainly an option might be to schedule a lecture by an expert on a Tuesday evening, and announce it from the pulpit. (Admittedly this is different idea.)
Certainly an option might be to schedule a lecture by an expert on a Tuesday evening, and announce it from the pulpit. (Admittedly this is different idea.)
In general, that wouldn't get many of the families in these parts, because everyone's kids are over-scheduled with scouts and choir and band and sports and dance and whatever else they do. Some of the older folks wouldn't come because they don't like driving after dark, and those that are bussed in from a "retirement home" wouldn't come.
I would think if you want to estimate how many people we'd get to a midweek lecture on some topic of general interest, you could start by looking at the numbers for occasional midweek services (Ash Wednesday, Thanksgiving, ...), and then halving it.
Why shouldn't information from an expert in an area of concern be what "God wants the congregation to know"? If so, in what way does that contradict delivering that in the part of a service where one would normally have a sermon?
OK. For several denominations the sermon, as mentioned is central to the service. Not having a sermon would be unthinkable.
I'm also from a tradition where the sermon is an essential, indeed possibly central, part of our worship. But, when whoever is leading worship says "and, here's X to expound what God needs us to hear", what's the difference if X is a regular in the pulpit talking about the sheep and goats or if X is (say) a prison chaplain talking from their experience of visiting people in prison? Is there something magic going on that makes a message from God from one person valid and from another not? Or, is it just that there's an expectation of the message given being linked to the Scripture that's been read before hand? In which case, choose some suitable alternative passages to fit the subject.
It is usual for a sermon to expand upon one of the readings of the day, but I don't think it's essential.
I'd say there was a difference between a person who has been ordained and licensed to preach the Word of God in a place, and someone who hasn't. If my priest was to invite a lay person to preach (which does happen on rare occasions), then I'd be expecting them to exert significant oversight, to ensure that whatever was proclaimed from the pulpit was appropriate.
A talk that happens even within the service, but is not presented as a sermon, does not require the same editorial oversight. There is a significant difference, in my mind, between inviting a representative of a charity that we support to give a talk about what their charity does, how they see this as doing God's work, and so on vs inviting them to preach.
If my priest was to invite a lay person to preach (which does happen on rare occasions), then I'd be expecting them to exert significant oversight, to ensure that whatever was proclaimed from the pulpit was appropriate.
I tend to do the same, although some would say that I wasn't being trusting enough/
A talk that happens even within the service, but is not presented as a sermon, does not require the same editorial oversight. There is a significant difference, in my mind, between inviting a representative of a charity that we support to give a talk about what their charity does, how they see this as doing God's work, and so on vs inviting them to preach.
I don't quite agree. I vividly remember a service at which we'd invited the representative of a charity we were supporting. I'd told her that she had 8 minutes, expecting she'd take 10. In fact she rambled on boringly for what seemed forever; I didn't feel I could stop her as that would have looked rude. I had to trim other bits of a carefully-planned service so as to keep time and I was Not Pleased! After the service several people came to me and commiserated. What was worst of all is that she was an official paid speaker for said charity and Should Have Done Better!
In our denomination we expect (require, froth at the mouth about) to have law and gospel preached at every service. So if we get a public service announcement instead, we feel sort of cheated. Not that the PSA is worthless, but you can get those in so many other places.
I've gone back to the original newspaper coverage:
YMCA - Lesson 1 Peter 2 Hymns Onward Christian Soldiers and Sound the Battle cry. Address "Alcohol the enemy of Brotherhood"
Rosemount Parish Church. No details, but the sermon was "The Power of Alcohol."
Queen's Cross United Free. The address followed the "devotional part of the service."
Crown Terrace Baptist. No details, but the title was "Some Lesson's from a Medical Man's Experience."
Rutherford United Free. No details, but the title was "National Efficiency and Drink."
Charlotte Street United Free. "Drink in Hot Climates."
Torry United Free. "Alcoholism from a Scientific Standpoint"
Trinity Congregational Church "The Influence of Moderate Quantities of Alcohol on the Brain" (spoiler - it's a bad influence)
Gallowgate United Free (evening service). No details of the service, but the title was "Does Alcohol increase Efficiency?" (spoiler - no it doesn't)
North Church United Free (evening service). Lessons read by the minister, but it doesn't say what the lessons were. Title "Alcohol in the Treatment of Disease."
Unitarian Church (evening service) "Medical Reasons for Temperance."
Trinity Congregational (evening service) "Alcohol and Nerves"
Y.M.C.A. evening meeting (not a service, just talks) Various talks on alcoholism.
Women's afternoon meeting (i.e. not a church service) Gallowgate United Free "Alcohol"
Bon Accord sisterhood afternoon meeting (again, not a service) "What Shall I drink?" (spoiler - water)
Salvation Army Citadel (afternoon) "The Merits of Temperance."
On first reading I had thought that more churches had handed over the pulpit in the main morning service, but on re-reading I see it was eight morning services, four evening services, and four meetings.
Having read it more closely, I was interested to see Dr Marion Gilchrist, at the Y.M.C.A. evening meeting, quoted as saying: At the present time she was giving most of her energy to women's suffrage (laughter and applause) and she believed that if they would all exercise the same self-sacrifice, devotion to duty, and heroism as was at present being exercised by the militant suffragettes - whether they approved of their methods or not - the drink question would be solved tomorrow (applause).
I am intrigued by "Drink in Hot Climates" - Edinburgh is perhaps not quite the warmest place on the planet, especially when the wind comes from the East.
Aberdeen even less so ... and, 1914 wouldn't have seen lots of people travel to warmer climes for their holidays either (which is where most people in the UK now experience drink in hot climates).
I think the "Drink in Hot Climates" was about "Drink in our Colonies" - India, Africa etc. There were lots of Aberdonians in the Colonial Civil Service, or with connections to missionaries etc.
I think the "Drink in Hot Climates" was about "Drink in our Colonies" - India, Africa etc. There were lots of Aberdonians in the Colonial Civil Service, or with connections to missionaries etc.
The missionary concern that indigenous populations would be lured into Western vices like tobacco and alcohol (dancing, sex work, promiscuity), was fairly widespread across British colonies and because of that the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to Black people was outlawed for decades. Homebrewed liquor was sold in shebeens or beer halls and was extremely intoxicating. The settler community had high rates of alcoholism and heavy drinking combined with malaria and the risk of heat strokes meant that churches established to minister to settlers focused on temperance rallies and taking pledges. It was a favourite topic for sermons and lectures all through the 19th and early 20th centuries. Very little was understood about alcoholism because it was regarded as a moral failing and not an illness/behavioral disorder and methods of safe detoxing or sobriety support were inadequate. One famous case study is the severe alcoholism of Mary Moffat (who married David Livingstone) and her ostracism in missionary circles.
I don't know. Could it be so that they were being warned against the very real danger of falling prey to the Demon Drink. and/or that they were able to relay back to Britain news of the officials' and traders' drinking habits?
The "Drink in Hot Climates" address condemned "the convivial customs in the tropics" which I think was aimed squarely at the British abroad.
OK, that wasn't clear to me. Why would missionaries have been mentioned?
They weren't. I was responding to comments querying the relevance of "Drink in Hot Climates" in the generally chilly Aberdeen. I was pointing out that Aberdeen, much like everywhere else at the height of the Empire, had many links with the colonies, including the civil service and the church.
In fact, so many of Aberdeen's young male graduates headed for a career in the colonies that there were complaints about a dearth of marriage opportunities for Aberdeen's middle-class young ladies.
My great great grandfather (born in Lumsden in Aberdeenshire) went to China as a medical missionary in 1863. The mission was based in one of the ‘treaty ports’, and there was clearly a significant and very mixed expatriate community there. Many of them were associated with trade or diplomacy, rather than being missionaries.
Comments
Where does this come from? What does using the lectionary have to do with it?
This was done over a number of Sundays in the 1980s, 1990s, early 2000s when qualified laypeople (medical nurses and doctors) spoke on using contraceptives (condoms) to protect oneself and a partner from HIV+. Because this was a departure from traditional Catholic teaching, the parish priest didn't say anything but remained present and encouraged parishioners to break through the silence and stigma around AIDS by asking questions.
During the pandemic, medical experts spoke to those present in church to explain why the Mass and all church activities would be suspended, and how Communion-givers would visit the sick and dying where possible, how burials and funerals or memorial services would continue with restrictions. Some of those talks went on for up to three hours and nobody moved. On leaving church, parishioners were given masks and hand washing was done outside. Then the church doors were locked and would not open again until Covid vaccinations were made available in South Africa.
I think there is a feeling in non-Lectionary-using churches that "Our Preacher has sought the Lord to give them a message for today" and that the churches which use the Lectionary are less open to that breath of the Spirit. (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with that, by the way).
Conversely I have been in Lectionary-using churches where the preacher ,wanting to make a point about a current issue, horribly and inappropriately shoe-horned the set text into their sermon because they felt they couldn't simply ignore it.
Bad preaching is always bad preaching, but part of the purpose of the lectionary is to be drawn out of our personal pre-occupations and hobby horses to hear what God is saying through the readings today, to the people gathered in this place. It takes a different approach from deciding what you want to talk about (leaving open the extent to which that decision is divinely inspired) and picking a reading that fits. The lectionary forces both preacher and congregation to wrestle with things they'd rather avoid.
While your last sentence is true, there is also the point that, by sticking to the Lectionary, many Bible passages are never used.
OK. For several denominations the sermon, as mentioned is central to the service. Not having a sermon would be unthinkable. My old church in London had a speaker in on environmental issues, but we are not the kind of church I am getting at. That said the speaker was thoroughly versed in the theology of the Environment.
For first Sunday services, anyway. If follow a similar scheme for daily prayer you do get a broader range of scripture, but I take the point. I don't think I've often encountered the sequential OT lectionary readings so have missed out on e.g. Ruth. This page lists the OT lectionary readings by book so you can see what is missed, which I found interesting:
https://www.crivoice.org/lectionary/lectionlistot.html
In general, that wouldn't get many of the families in these parts, because everyone's kids are over-scheduled with scouts and choir and band and sports and dance and whatever else they do. Some of the older folks wouldn't come because they don't like driving after dark, and those that are bussed in from a "retirement home" wouldn't come.
I would think if you want to estimate how many people we'd get to a midweek lecture on some topic of general interest, you could start by looking at the numbers for occasional midweek services (Ash Wednesday, Thanksgiving, ...), and then halving it.
I'd say there was a difference between a person who has been ordained and licensed to preach the Word of God in a place, and someone who hasn't. If my priest was to invite a lay person to preach (which does happen on rare occasions), then I'd be expecting them to exert significant oversight, to ensure that whatever was proclaimed from the pulpit was appropriate.
A talk that happens even within the service, but is not presented as a sermon, does not require the same editorial oversight. There is a significant difference, in my mind, between inviting a representative of a charity that we support to give a talk about what their charity does, how they see this as doing God's work, and so on vs inviting them to preach.
I don't quite agree. I vividly remember a service at which we'd invited the representative of a charity we were supporting. I'd told her that she had 8 minutes, expecting she'd take 10. In fact she rambled on boringly for what seemed forever; I didn't feel I could stop her as that would have looked rude. I had to trim other bits of a carefully-planned service so as to keep time and I was Not Pleased! After the service several people came to me and commiserated. What was worst of all is that she was an official paid speaker for said charity and Should Have Done Better!
In many, I think - the sermon is the breaking of the word prior to the breaking of the bread for those of us in a more catholic tradition.
Break, thou, the bread of life
Dear Lord, to me
YMCA - Lesson 1 Peter 2 Hymns Onward Christian Soldiers and Sound the Battle cry. Address "Alcohol the enemy of Brotherhood"
Rosemount Parish Church. No details, but the sermon was "The Power of Alcohol."
Queen's Cross United Free. The address followed the "devotional part of the service."
Crown Terrace Baptist. No details, but the title was "Some Lesson's from a Medical Man's Experience."
Rutherford United Free. No details, but the title was "National Efficiency and Drink."
Charlotte Street United Free. "Drink in Hot Climates."
Torry United Free. "Alcoholism from a Scientific Standpoint"
Trinity Congregational Church "The Influence of Moderate Quantities of Alcohol on the Brain" (spoiler - it's a bad influence)
Gallowgate United Free (evening service). No details of the service, but the title was "Does Alcohol increase Efficiency?" (spoiler - no it doesn't)
North Church United Free (evening service). Lessons read by the minister, but it doesn't say what the lessons were. Title "Alcohol in the Treatment of Disease."
Unitarian Church (evening service) "Medical Reasons for Temperance."
Trinity Congregational (evening service) "Alcohol and Nerves"
Y.M.C.A. evening meeting (not a service, just talks) Various talks on alcoholism.
Women's afternoon meeting (i.e. not a church service) Gallowgate United Free "Alcohol"
Bon Accord sisterhood afternoon meeting (again, not a service) "What Shall I drink?" (spoiler - water)
Salvation Army Citadel (afternoon) "The Merits of Temperance."
On first reading I had thought that more churches had handed over the pulpit in the main morning service, but on re-reading I see it was eight morning services, four evening services, and four meetings.
Having read it more closely, I was interested to see Dr Marion Gilchrist, at the Y.M.C.A. evening meeting, quoted as saying:
At the present time she was giving most of her energy to women's suffrage (laughter and applause) and she believed that if they would all exercise the same self-sacrifice, devotion to duty, and heroism as was at present being exercised by the militant suffragettes - whether they approved of their methods or not - the drink question would be solved tomorrow (applause).
I am intrigued by "Drink in Hot Climates" - Edinburgh is perhaps not quite the warmest place on the planet, especially when the wind comes from the East.
The missionary concern that indigenous populations would be lured into Western vices like tobacco and alcohol (dancing, sex work, promiscuity), was fairly widespread across British colonies and because of that the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to Black people was outlawed for decades. Homebrewed liquor was sold in shebeens or beer halls and was extremely intoxicating. The settler community had high rates of alcoholism and heavy drinking combined with malaria and the risk of heat strokes meant that churches established to minister to settlers focused on temperance rallies and taking pledges. It was a favourite topic for sermons and lectures all through the 19th and early 20th centuries. Very little was understood about alcoholism because it was regarded as a moral failing and not an illness/behavioral disorder and methods of safe detoxing or sobriety support were inadequate. One famous case study is the severe alcoholism of Mary Moffat (who married David Livingstone) and her ostracism in missionary circles.
OK, that wasn't clear to me. Why would missionaries have been mentioned?
They weren't. I was responding to comments querying the relevance of "Drink in Hot Climates" in the generally chilly Aberdeen. I was pointing out that Aberdeen, much like everywhere else at the height of the Empire, had many links with the colonies, including the civil service and the church.
In fact, so many of Aberdeen's young male graduates headed for a career in the colonies that there were complaints about a dearth of marriage opportunities for Aberdeen's middle-class young ladies.