Ship of Fools: Emmanuel, Wimbledon, London, England
The Mystery Worshipper
Shipmate
Ship of Fools: Emmanuel, Wimbledon, London, England
Confident worship, hashtagged sermon, good filter coffee, and a refreshing welcome
Read the full Mystery Worshipper report here
Comments
Not licit - in fact not remotely licit, especially the individual cups, which very far from licit are in fact AIUI precisely forbidden. So there's that, no gospel - part of me wonders if an MW report has ever been given in evidence for a complaint under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963...
I know that there is a vast ocean of moral water between liturgical irregularity and the abusive behaviour of a former minister (referred to in the report's introduction). But it does suggest that this tradition, with its tenuous links to Anglicanism and its unshakeable conviction that there is only one way to interpret scripture, maybe protected the abuser. I know that discussion is not one for this thread, and of course as we know very well, clerical abuse happens in churches of many varieties of liturgy and theology.
But that aside, the MW seemed to appreciate this service, as the regular attenders obviously did. I've no problem with groups of Christians worshipping in this way. But why should they want to claim membership of the C of E? Evangelical Anglicans used the 1662 Prayer Book with no complaints until fairly recently. 'Evangelical Anglicans' like this, who don't read the Gospel publicly or respect Anglican tradition, leave me puzzled.
8.30 am Service
Our 8.30 is a reflective service using liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer and includes hymns and communion together.
Please note the 8.30 service is only on the second and fourth Sunday of the month.
Reasons to remain in the CofE -Property, salaries, pensions. Do CofE bishops not have the powers to regulate the Liturgy in their own dioceses?
They probably do (clergy Shipmates will know for certain), but they don't seem to exercise such powers very much, if at all. C of E Canon Law appears to allow so many variations, large and small, that it's hard to know what's OK and what's not!
Emmanuel is looked after by the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, presumably in preference to the Bishop of Southwark.
As to the reasons listed, yes...not very many C of E clergy left to join the RCs (or the Ordinariate) when that became an option some years ago - only two from this Diocese AFAIK.
I also wonder if the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, who is generally conservative in his attitude on liturgy and authority, is aware of what is going on in this corner of Wimbledon.
I’m not Anglican, so I may be totally off base about this; apologies in advance if I am. But looking at this from a Reformed (specifically Presbyterian) perspective, the Gospels are typically not looked at as in a separate class from the rest of Scripture, such that there must be a Gospel reading at every Eucharist. In my experience, the traditional norm in a Presbyterian service—Communion or otherwise—is an OT reading and a NT reading. Similarly, in my experience, even though a majority of PC(USA) congregations follow the Revised Common Lectionary, only a minority will use all three readings, plus psalm. Most will use only two readings, generally the OT reading and either the Epistle or the Gospel.
Which makes me wonder if this particular flavor of Evangelical Anglican is showing something akin to a Reformed influence when it comes to readings in worship, despite the requirements and traditions of the C of E.
To be clear, not that that excuses, but it might explain.
Readings from the Old Testament would have mostly been confined in BCP days to the Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer, at which the Psalm(s) would have been sung or said. I guess the current arrangements - three readings and a psalm at the Eucharist - date from the time when weekly Parish Communion became far more common, with Morning and Evening Prayer being lost on most Sundays...
Did the ASB 1980 include 3 readings for Sundays? I no longer have a copy, so can't check.
@Nick Tamen - I think you're probably right about the Reformed influence, certainly in churches of the type MWed. It's not clear from Emmanuel's website, but they may well have a Gospel reading at some, at least, of their non-BCP services, if the Lord's Supper is being celebrated.
Of course. But (apart from the obvious financial benefits) why should they want to continue to belong to the C of E?
Yes. And before the ASB and its lectionary, Old Testament readings were provided for use with the BCP lectionary...maybe from the early 70s or so.
But as an outsider looking in, I also wonder if there might not be a sense that, despite canonical and other requirements, the C of E de facto makes room for this kind of flexibility without calling “Anglican-ness” into question. The sense I get, at least, is that the things that once united and perhaps defined the Church of England, such as use of authorized liturgies, don’t necessarily anymore. What’s not clear, to me at least, is what are the unifying and defining things.
Again, I may be totally off base.
A parish nigh unto Our Place's parish offers a similar diet, and they (led by a female vicar) would probably describe themselves as charismatic-evangelicals...
AFAICT from their website, they celebrate Holy Communion only once a month in the principal church, and once a month in their church plant in a local school. They eschew *flying Bishops*, and cleave themselves unto the Diocesan chap, who is presumably OK with what they do, even though they are by no means a mega-large congregation.
Any clues about what this means please? Never heard "laldy" before (or read it for that matter).
Though as to the second point, and in the context of the discussion in this thread, the question can arise whether the evangelion is found only in, or primarily in the Gospels, or is it found throughout Scripture.
Is the evangelion found primarily in the evangelion? Is that a trick question?
What I’m getting it is a presupposition that unless there is a reading from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, and unless the sermon/homily focuses on that reading from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the evangelion hasn’t been the focus, at the heart of things.
As just one possible counter-example, I’d say that if the reading was from Romans 8 and the sermon focused on that, the evangelion most definitely was front and center.
The C of E prescribes a Gospel reading at each and every Eucharist, but there are (AFAIK) no rules about always using it as the basis for sermon or homily!
I think, though I'm not sure, that might be the RC rule. But even there I doubt if it is totally inflexible. The lectionary is structured around the Gospel reading in that the first reading and psalm, if not always the Epistle, are chosen to illuminate the theme of the Gospel passage. In our (Anglican) tradition that is moderated somewhat in that during Ordinary Time (ie outwith the major seasons of Lent, Easter etc) there are two 'tracks' for the first reading. One follows the original RC-inspired lectionary with a 'related' passage; the other reads through a book of the Old Testament more or less continuously.
As a matter of personal preference I usually preach on the Gospel for the day. Clever preachers might weave all three readings together; some ignore the scriptures of the day entirely. The important thing is to proclaim the Gospel, and as has been said above, this means more than the particular words in the four books called 'gospel'.
I sometimes get the notion that the reformation replaced the man with the magic actions with the man with the magic mouth.
@Alan29, while I can’t deny that the notion you sometimes get is too accurate, in my tradition, at least, it is clearly expected that the sermon will be based on Scripture that has been read and will “present the gospel with clarity and simplicity, in language that all can understand.” (Quoting from the The Directory for Worship of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).)
No, you are not off-base. It's the $64,000 question.
This former Anglican has absolutely no idea what the unifying and defining marks of Anglicanism are any more. I doubt if many Anglicans do either, particularly in the dear old CofE.
It's funny how we change. I'd have very much appreciated a service like this at one time but these days it'd leave me cold, apart from the rendition of 'And can it be?'
Context is everything though and I wouldn't at all object if I came across a service like this in a 'Free Church' setting.
Traditionally in those Christian communities with a liturgy based on the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies the word 'Gospel' refers to the four 'gospels' attributed to Matthew,Mark,Luke and John. A reading from those books has always been the high point of the Liturgy of the Word.
But the word 'Gospel' can also be used to refer to the whole of the New Testament stories.
Nick Tamen is right to say, at least in my estimation, that Presbyterians will often have in their religious services an Old Testament Reading and a New Testament Reading which may come from any part of the New Testament and which is all considered as part of the 'Gospel'
I remember once talking to an elderly Presbyterian and talking mentioning the part which the 'Gospel' played in a Catholic service. This was when she asked me what I meant by the 'Gospel'.
Referring to each of the first four books of the NT as “Gospel” derives from this primary meaning. Again, in the words of the Second Helvetic Confession:
So while “Gospel reading” would clearly indicate a reading from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, simply saying “the Gospel” might or might not, depending on context.
The exception to that, and I'm being a tad simplistic here, is in the context of church services when it refers to a set reading from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
In essence, these form a kind of 'canon within a canon' as it were.
It wouldn't faze or upset me to hear a reading from any other NT book instead of the Gospels in a Presbyterian service. Why should it?
But it would bother me not to hear one in an Anglican service. Indeed, that and much else used to bug me in our local evangelical Anglican parish. It was only by attending that church that it dawned on me that I really wasn't an evangelical any more - other in the broadest sense of having a commitment to the 'Good News', to the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
It does bug me also that there can often be so little scripture read or sung by evangelicals of all people.
I don't know what's happened to contemporary evangelicalism. It's lost its way somehow.
I'm not sure that "pew" catholics would have a word for the whole shooting match, but theologians would refer to the Kerygma in that context.
It doesn't bug me that evangelicals can have a whole service with no scripture reading ..... but I am gob-smacked that such a thing could happen, and wonder how it could have come about. The phrase "Word of God" is screaming in my head at this point.
It is, in a sense, Jesus himself entering the room, and speaking to the assembly, as @Forthview says.
We all have our blind-spots though.
But that doesn’t change how Gospel is used in those traditions. See, for example, Paul in 1 Cor. 15:1–8:
“Now I want you to understand, brothers and sisters, the good news [evangelion/Gospel] that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
Here, the Gospel is the message, which the Gospels contain.
And I might have been a little clearer had I said “See, for example, how Paul uses the term in 1 Cor. 15:1–8 . . . . That’s the sense in which it is primarily used in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.”
😉
I'm no expert but I wouldn't see the Orthodox in general as having much of a problem with the understanding you have outlined there from 1 Corinthians 15.
Where the Orthodox would part company with evangelicals within the small r reformed or Big R Reformed traditions, is the propensity in some quarters to reduce the Gospel to a 'Gospel message'.
The Good News is Christ not simply a message about Christ.
'He has become our salvation.'
I'm not saying that either the Lutheran or Reformed traditions downplay that. Far from it.
But in some forms of popular evangelical presentation there's a somewhat reductionist approach.
And yep.
"What constitutes a gospel reading?" would be an interesting discussion in Ecclesiantics.
"What actually is the Good News?" would be an interesting discussion in Purgatory.
[/Hostly Hint]
I think the first could be addressed very quickly in Ecclesiantics.
A reading from Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.
The second Purgatorial one would have more mileage.
But neatly done.