I have three words for Fr. Kerbel:

No, no, no!

On reflection, let me add a fourth:

NO!

I'll agree with number 2 (hospitality is central) and with number 17 (preaching should be both good and relatively short), other than that...

Worship takes however long the act of worship takes it unfold. We use the language and the prayers of the Book of Common Prayer. Why--because they're old? No, because the Church has for centuries of Spirit-guided witness discovered that these patterns and texts--like the Gloria, et al.--draw us deeper into the mystery of God.

Think with me on this: if something is foreign must it therefore be inhospitable? I have been welcomed into dozens of homes and places in Asia and elsewhere where the customs, the language, the food, everything was strange to me. And yet, it was sometimes in those places where I felt most welcomed and honored. What is truly counter-cultural is presenting visitors--first-timers and those who have been coming for decades--with an alternate reality, a new way of viewing and understandfing the world, a place where the loving mystery of God is at the center. Incidentally, if God is at the center it means that me, my desires and expectations are not...

What should the church do, I wonder? Should the Church obscure its identity and falsify its witness in order to catch people unawares so that won't realize their in church? Or do we invite them into a life lived in the mystery of God?

Let me try again. (long time reader, first time caller...)

First of all, Derek is right on with both his critique and his agreements. It's not the structure of the worship that needs to change in order for a church to become hospitable to those who are new to what's going on.

I am part of a growing urban Anglo-Catholic parish. We have visitors transitioning into regular attendees on a weekly basis. We still use the BCP and hymnal, have incense, sung liturgy, and complex choral arrangements sung by our choir. According to most of the points mentioned above we should be going nowhere fast.

Here's a couple strategies we've employed that have made a difference without sacrificing our complex liturgical identity:

1.Do liturgy really well. We have regular trainings for servers, and debrief each mass after it happens.

2.Have a great coffee hour. This is where real welcoming happens - our parishioners have worked hard at being welcoming at coffee hour and doing it well. Social time can be as holy and edifying as worship together. Make it a priority for the rector to be at coffee hour.

3.Move the annoucements to coffee hour. Annoucements can break up the flow of what's happening in liturgy, and are usually printed in the bulletin anyway. This will motivate folks to get to the parish hall, and give them treats to munch on while listening to announcements. Stick to a short welcome to newcomers and open invitation for everone to come to coffee hour during the mass itself.

My son is starting to confess Christianity.

This would not have happened if it weren't for the open table.

*shudder*

In my experience, it's most often the clergy who enjoy monkeying around with the liturgy. The people in the pews would rather not suffer through the awful stuff that passes for "relevant" or "interesting" liturgy.

When I was a campus minister, we learned very quickly that worship is a practice that people who are already attracted to the community engage in. We never saw a single student come to worship first -- but we had tons start coming after first attending bible study or our Sunday morning brunch.

The bottom line is, evangelism is not what Sunday morning is for. Some people will have a conversion experience there and decide to join the church -- but that should not be the primary means of getting people in the door. (Not to mention, the less you monkey with the liturgy, the more likely such conversion experiences will be! I doubt anyone has been converted by someone's awkward, ad libbed prayer, but plenty have been converted by the beautiful words of the historical Western liturgy.)

Fr Chris Tessone

hmmm, good food for thought here...I may not partake of every part, but interesting rant ... and we may get more people in the door ...

I like the question, "start wondering what the other 99% of people in your community do to connect with God" ... the answer may be "watching American Idol" ...

AmericanIdolCharist may be around the corner!

;)

Interesting post; I'm sure some thought has been put into it. But it's a bit gimmicky for me. I lived for 23 yrs in Texas (Bible Belt, TX). And a lot in my parish there were ex-Baptists or, in the case of many queer fold, ex-Pentecostals. The reason they were attracted to TEC was the liturgy!

Jay Vos

I agree with the critiques above (though we also do #5 and #3 - we do not pass the plate at all). But, particularly, I take issue with the assertion in #4 that communion is not about discipleship

1 Cor 11 is pretty clearly about the link between communion and discipleship. How we treat each other as the body of Christ matters. That is what discerning the body means. Unless we take seriously our belonging to one another and caring for one another, we have not discerned the body and our communion is false and our claim to be in communion with Christ is suspect. Thus the Eucharist/Communion is as much an act of commitment and accountability as is baptism. The two sacraments support and inform each other. Understanding either as simply an issue of hospitality misses something essential. And it indicates a pretty anemic understanding of hospitality.

Historically, Christianity has emphasized community and belonging. In an American, post-Enlightenment context which emphasizes the individual and choice, the difference between community and an association of individuals can be hard to appreciate. Communion without baptism (CWOB) puts the emphasis on the individual and her or his personal spiritual journey rather than on our belonging and our responsibility for, and accountability to, one another.

Ironically, CWOB is a Christendom move in a post-Christendom situation. When when the distinctions between society and the Church are minimized, the distinctive practices and disciplines that mark off membership in one or the other become negligible if not incomprehensible. Where our true citizenship lies is a question both the religious right and the religious left in America tend to get wrong.

CWOB moves us from being an intentional community of self-giving, mutual support, encouragement, challenge, conversion and transformation gathered by and around the self-giving of Jesus Christ to being a generic religious restaurant with god on the menu for individual consumption.

That said, there is no doubt that God can work bad theology and practice to good, as Helen Thompson bears witness. But, then, the fact that many of us first learned to love and follow Jesus in Fundamentalist contexts is hardly an argument for introducing more Fundamentalism in our preaching and worship.

Caveat Emptor: I am an Anglican Studies student currently enrolled in seminary. I am far from an expert on any of this... perhaps that is why I was so shocked at how much of this article shows a lack of basic understanding (even if he chooses to avoid appreciation) of some fundamental issues.

Indeed, I was really surprised that this was published on "The Lead." The author's approach to liturgy and worship betrays a lack of appreciation for both intentional liturgy and the actual breadth of practice allowed in the rubrics of the Prayer Book.

Furthermore, in his comments on Mary he shows that is he not only unfamiliar with Greek but that he doesn't even know what he's arguing against (nowhere do we pray "for" Mary).

The Prayer Book and its rubrics are not to be jettisoned in favor of one person's personal opinions with regard to what people really want in church. If these are his opinions, then he should try to become actively involved in arguing for Prayer Book revision. Fundamental to idea behind prayer book worship is the idea that the people should not be held captive to the tastes and quirks of their rector. Rather, the Prayer Book provides framework. Through the Prayer Book the church says, "This is how worship should look." Who is he to think he alone knows better.

I'm with others above who find these suggestions to be less than helpful, apart from 2 and 17. Just because someone is in early middle age don't think they speak for "youth." This is a typical example of "Fr knows best" -- and in this case he doesn't. We are a liturgical church with a common liturgy -- with plenty of room for variation. We don't worship the BCP, we worship with the BCP.

I'm not speaking in any sort of offical capacity here, but we would all do well to remember that all items posted to the Lead are pretty much offered as food for thought and discussion. Frankly, I'm astonished that our integrity would be questioned for posting this. What I'd really like to see is how we get the unchurched comfortable with liturgy, since we all are. I was raised with it, so it was fairly natural coming back to it. But I'm open to any suggestions as to how to get my fiance a little less resistant to it.

Speaking as a moderator...

"Scott" we can't publish your comment without having you use your full name. I you want to contact me directly, and have me add your name to your post, I'll be happy to do that.

(nicholas@knisely.net)

I appreciate Helen's comment that "all items posted to the Lead are pretty much offered as food for thought and discussion"...if that is the goal, this piece certainly reached the goal...lots of comment here...also, I think these discussions are EXACTLY what we need to be doing in our church-bring in the "emergent" folks, talk with the mega-churches, go to coffee houses, bars, parks, concerts and other places where people actually want to go and hang out for more than one hour ...

I think we can tend to look like we "worship the bc", but I agree with Fr. Haller that we worship "with the bcp" ... and worship with the bcp can be great, and uplifting, and awesome! But we need the conversation and also need to imho practice some humility about our own wonderful and crazy denomination so that we can build up the Church. I appreciate this piece and if it is meant to be provocative and spur discussion - well done!

Sometimes we need to stir the pot or the food can be pretty bad!

Peter

As the poster of this item on the Lead - I thought it might engender some discussion about liturgy and what works and does not work. I know many who are sort of interested in what TEC does but are too intimidated by all the unwritten rules - the books, the standing and sitting and sometimes kneeling, etc. I found Jarrett's blog challenging and it made me think - not change for change sake - but to reflect and be intentional about what is happening in worship.

I apologize if it seemed I was questioning the integrity of "The Lead" for posting this article. I meant to say that this article is not of the sort of quality that most articles posted here. And I don't say that just because I disagree with it. I found the articles on CWOB, whether I agreed or not, challenging and well-argued.

In answer to Helen's concern, I would humbly suggest that maybe her fiance's spirituality is simply not that of Prayer Book Anglicanism. Central to TEC ecclesiology is the idea that we don't have to be all things to all people, we don't claim that our approach to worship and Christianity should be normative for all, and many people may find more challenging and engaging approaches in other Christian traditions.

I'm not terribly concerned with altering everything possible to get as many bodies in the door as possible. I'm more concerned with finding intentional ways to ooze hospitality and welcome in a distinctively Anglican manner, guiding people into the liturgy with kind and generous hands.

I haven't read the article that we are discussing. My comment has to do with the comments. I found them articulate, and persuasive viz. liturgy. But as I am not a liturgist, but am supposed to be advancing my diocese's efforts in evangelism, I want to ask what kind of liturgy you think is welcoming to the stranger. Please don't tell me liturgy isn't supposed to be welcoming to the stranger. We can't expect people to get out of bed on Sunday mornings to attend a service they don't understand, or that emphasizes their non-membership, so that they can enjoy 20 minutes of fellowship at the coffee hour or catch an occasional adult ed. lecture. Liturgy is the main event for a denomination that is fast losing membership as old folks die and young folks drift away. Somehow, we have to make it a more attractive force than it currenlty seems to be. Or else we won't be around in a few decades. I have no real ideas how to do that, but I feel the need to assert that it must be done.

For me, as a wandering Episcopalian, I wouldn't want to come back to a church like the poster desribed. Mostly because of his willingness to drop or simplify the music. Music is the way I commune with the divine-- cutting it out or just playing 'simple' things that everyone can sing would remove 90% of what is important to me about liturgy. More singing, not less! It doesn't have to be perfect, and it does help if you have some strong singers to help introduce songs that are difficult and songs that are new to the congregation. I think that we sometimes greatly underestimate people's abiliity to sing. One of the best experiences of my life was attending church in Norway. My Norwegian was not quite up to the challenge of following all that was going on but the music reduced me to tears of joy. I was so far away from home but in that sanctuary, hearing the music rise up made me feel part of a much larger community.

- Kristin Fontaine

Hey Jim--great question. I'm formulating a response to it...

Responding to Jim's question, copying my response from Derek's place:

Actually, it occurs to me that I went a little overboard saying that liturgy isn't for evangelism -- and The Postulant (at Derek's blog) was right to suggest otherwise, and point out that it's the Eucharist specifically that shouldn't be pointed in this direction. Frankly, the Office can fill this role beautifully.

Worried that seekers don't necessarily want to come on Sunday morning? Offer Evening Prayer on weekday evenings. The services are also short, which is a plus in this case. Add a longer Saturday "vigil" EP -- that's something I wish a local church around here would do even for committed folks. Maybe do a light meal or something first. There are plenty of places in the Office to add simple congregational music -- the Magnificat, settings of the Psalms, etc. Sung Compline or EP+Compline on Sunday nights would also be beautiful.

And the great thing is, these can all be lead by lay people.

Fr Chris Tessone

Without its liturgical traditions the Episcopal Church becomes a shadow of itself. I would not put too great a burden on the Sunday service as the means of evangelism.

My guess is evangelism for the Episcopal Church will be successful through opening up the church at other hours than Sunday morning. Hours that fit the groups in the neighborhood that we are seeking to attract and serve. It might be a Bible study, a simple worship, some simple and elegant music. Candles, Taize. And from there to Sunday worship.

Others will show up on our door on Sunday morning.
We welcome and we introduce them to the church's offerings, helping them to find what works for them - if they are interested in that guidance. But are we going overboard if we worry that this is our only chance to impress them that they're really like this place based upon their first uninitiated experience of worship?

Yes, we should reflect on how our worship will be perceived by a newcomer or a church newbie, but we should remain true who we are. The Episcopal Church isn't for everyone. And I know plenty of young people who would be turned off by a watered down liturgy and hokey music.

Greetings:
As a first time poster on the blog, I am a little apprehensive as in my experience there often can be much misunderstanding develop in this venue, but her goes, anyway. Kerbel's article struck many a responsive chord with me. Although his tone, at times, is a bit confrontive, such is probably necessary to get the attention of those of us who "love" Anglican liturgy. I read Kerbel after haveing just read Tony Clavier's piece about the characteristics of Anglicanism in which he fusses about the "dangers" of seeking "practical solutions" to our current problems. It provided an interesting contrast in perspective--some would wish to continue to revere the "decency and in order" conception of our Anglican world, including our liturgy, while at the same time bemoaning our apparent inability to attract many new folks to our services. Others are willing to "boldly go where no liturgical crafter has gone before" and to risk the consequences. I find several of Kerbel's suggestions right on the mark, and most "practical" in terms of making our
worship services open and welcoming. I plan to use his article as the basis
for some educational efforts with worship committees!
Peace,

All right, I'm about to show my age....

In the Early Devouring Period (kudos to anyone who recognizes the cultural reference), I learned my liturgy and liturgical theology under Marion Hatchett. His posture was that it was important to stay within the tradition - first the Episcopal tradition, then somewhere else in the Anglican tradition, and then somewhere in the Christian tradition - in determining how to adapt the liturgy to needs of the congregation. He encouraged awareness of the breadth of Christian tradition (Adai and Mari anyone?), so as to be able to draw on elements that have served somewhere in the Christian community in our shared history. However, the point was always to consider the needs of the congregation. And note that what someone needs is not necessarily what someone wants. Liturgy is the work of the people, and we need not apologize if sometimes we really mean work. It really is possible to "dumb down" liturgy: to make it so easy, so full of passion and empty of content, so much fun with so little challenge, that we really are reduced to entertaining people we should be engaging with God and with us.

What this means, then, is that we also need to do the work ahead of time - work understanding our history, work understanding our congregations, and work developing the structures that express hospitality, in the liturgy as well as after it. If we make some effort at these things, and appreciate just how much room there is in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, we have significant options.

What are some of those needs? Balance, I think, mostly: enough repetition to contribute to formation with enough introduction to keep folks alert; enough didactic information to help folks understand what we're doing with enough appeal to passion to keep folks engaged; enough time to really transmit meaning with enough of a steady pace to keep everyone together.

Now, I've said in a variety of places that I'm ready for a new Prayer Book. My reason is not that I dislike the 1979 Book. Rather, it is that I think there is a good deal of good, new stuff available, and already approved by General Convention for trial use, that very few will experience without incorporation into a new book, or at least into a process toward a new book. And isn't that a wonderful thought: liturgical tools already vetted by the Church, reflective of our tradition, already within our grasp but undiscovered. There's also some good contemporary hymnody out there. Why, then, should we settle for chants that my best beloved describes (and charitably) as

"I love Jesus, yes I do!
I love Jesus. So should you!"

The question isn't really new vs old. It's putting in the effort to understand the congregation we're serving, all the tools already at our disposal, preparing our welcome, doing our "work" well, and trusting that if we do new folks are capable of doing that work with us, and will find joy in doing so.

Marshall Scott