Another Option
We got our ballots today for voting on our preferred format for Sunday morning services. What do you do when your preferred format is not one of the options given?
In the past, in such cases, I’ve often invented my own option, and given it a plug in the comments section. This is a little like voting for someone in a presidential election who is neither a Republican or a Democrat–a Libertarian, maybe. You get to make a statement, but you already know that your side won’t win.
What I would like is this:
Everything as we have done it for 50 years with these changes:
1) General discussion shortened to 10 minutes instead of 20.
2) A sharing time in that time slot opened up by the shortened general discussion.
If I read it correctly, all the options on the sheet required an either/or vote between sharing time and general discussion. Why couldn’t we do a bit of both?
I’ve heard some interesting feedback since my brief comment in last Sunday’s discussion and a blog post on the subject.
One person told me today that she agreed with my comment (the one about liking to hear what the men have to say). Her husband, who did not grow up here, also values the general discussion.
Another response came via email, from a member who is serving abroad. She is a teacher in a Christian university. With Rachel’s permission, I’m quoting part of that email.
After information on how church services are conducted in the country where she lives, she said, “I think it is meaningful to have more emphasis put on praise and prayer (they pray a lot more in their services than we do in ours). But it does seem that the expository teaching element seems weaker. I think our [stateside church] SS classes (especially the focus of the general discussion) and our sermons make a great deal of effort to correctly understand the Word of God with teaching on how to live it.”
In another email she said:
“I do feel that one of the strengths our church has had is that people have been encouraged to think and express how they view things, in particular, how they understand Scripture and feel that it should be applied. And the forum for this, in my opinion, has been our general discussions and our Wednesday evening topics. If we do away with the general discussion piece of our Sunday morning service, I do hope that we don't do away with the freedom/ ability we have had to think critically, and publicly discuss issues, be it about Scripture, godly living in this world, or otherwise.”
About hearing what the men think:
“I too like it - and as you said, I have liked it since I was young. I think it is like you mentioned, it doesn't imply that it is necessarily superior, but it is different from women's viewpoints and provides balance - providing focus and overarching themes.
I do know one thing--I much prefer having our "general discussion" mode of providing balance/ getting a man's input on the SS lesson, than having men as teachers for the women's classes. There are some churches where they feel that the women should not be teaching the SS adult classes--even to their own gender.”
Quoting again–more specifically about general discussion:
About the sharing time/ general discussion debate I wonder if it becomes a question of how we wish to do our worship, (even though the general discussion times may not have necessarily been thought of as times of worship). I found a book recently on one of my friends' bookshelves and wish to read it: People in the Presence of God , by Barry Liesch. I found his overview in the introduction interesting. He noted 5 basic worship models in the Bible:
(I’ve taken the liberty to do some re-formatting to make it a little easier to read.)
I. Family worship (Pre-Sinai model: Parent-led worship in the family) Model #1
II. Small-group worship
A. Pauline model: body life–charismatic worship (dynamics of improvisation, Spirit-guided unity, maximum participation obtainable in small groups–I Cor. 14:26) Model #2
B. Synagogue worship (basic to many Protestant churches, emphasizes structured liturgy and accords a prominent place to worship, Scripture reading, and biblical exposition) Model #3
III. Large-group worship
A. Tabernacle/Temple worship (Tabernacle worship includes elements of worship such as drama, symbolism, the fine arts, and Davidic praise. Temple worship is special-events worship.)
Model #4
B. Revelation worship–worship in heaven (including elements from all of the models, but mostly the tabernacle/temple. It is inclusive, consummate, and timeless.) Model #5
Barry Liesch is an associate professor of music at Biola University in CA. As I said, I picked up the book because I thought it looked interesting. In glancing through it, I thought "this could make an interesting topic for Wednesday evening."
Some from our type of background may have similar reactions to Donald Hustad, who wrote the foreword to the book. He writes, "Reading the manuscript, at times I was not sure that I could agree sufficiently to write this foreword." . . . He continues though to say, "But I continued to read--and discovered that there is much here that will be helpful to any reasonable person."
Rachel continues: "Viewing the question (what to do about the general discussion) from afar, to me the general discussion has been good to potentially provide summary and balance to the individual classes. I liked having it. At the same time, I can see why people wish to have more personal ways of connecting with the group, especially since the group is big and this element can more easily be lost with size."
After her first email, my response to her contained the following, about the difficulty of saying something positive about general discussion without seeming to be against the sharing time, which I do believe has been profitable:
Mrs. I here: “ . . . I think even Amish Mennonites can follow fads in how church happens, and the touchy feelly fad is one possible bunny trail we might follow. I really don't have anything, though, against what has been happening in our share times. What I really object to is what sometimes comes across to me as being dismissive or disdainful toward our general discussion.”
In a later email, after affirming the idea of exploring a "both/and" option instead of only "either/or" options, Rachel added: I would like to see the discussion of Scripture and how it applies to me going more hand in hand. It seems to me formatting it this way, you could have the general discussion/ share time going from 10:25 to 10:50 with singing, share time and general discussion happening all in the same time. The one leading it would give conscious thought as to how these dimensions could smoothly flow together so that the whole would become a worshipful experience, not just "now we do this," and then "now we do the next thing." So much for now. . .
I’m putting the ballot paper aside till the best response becomes more clear to me. In the meantime, I’m listening and praying, emailing Rachel--and blogging, obviously.
In the past, in such cases, I’ve often invented my own option, and given it a plug in the comments section. This is a little like voting for someone in a presidential election who is neither a Republican or a Democrat–a Libertarian, maybe. You get to make a statement, but you already know that your side won’t win.
What I would like is this:
Everything as we have done it for 50 years with these changes:
1) General discussion shortened to 10 minutes instead of 20.
2) A sharing time in that time slot opened up by the shortened general discussion.
If I read it correctly, all the options on the sheet required an either/or vote between sharing time and general discussion. Why couldn’t we do a bit of both?
I’ve heard some interesting feedback since my brief comment in last Sunday’s discussion and a blog post on the subject.
One person told me today that she agreed with my comment (the one about liking to hear what the men have to say). Her husband, who did not grow up here, also values the general discussion.
Another response came via email, from a member who is serving abroad. She is a teacher in a Christian university. With Rachel’s permission, I’m quoting part of that email.
After information on how church services are conducted in the country where she lives, she said, “I think it is meaningful to have more emphasis put on praise and prayer (they pray a lot more in their services than we do in ours). But it does seem that the expository teaching element seems weaker. I think our [stateside church] SS classes (especially the focus of the general discussion) and our sermons make a great deal of effort to correctly understand the Word of God with teaching on how to live it.”
In another email she said:
“I do feel that one of the strengths our church has had is that people have been encouraged to think and express how they view things, in particular, how they understand Scripture and feel that it should be applied. And the forum for this, in my opinion, has been our general discussions and our Wednesday evening topics. If we do away with the general discussion piece of our Sunday morning service, I do hope that we don't do away with the freedom/ ability we have had to think critically, and publicly discuss issues, be it about Scripture, godly living in this world, or otherwise.”
About hearing what the men think:
“I too like it - and as you said, I have liked it since I was young. I think it is like you mentioned, it doesn't imply that it is necessarily superior, but it is different from women's viewpoints and provides balance - providing focus and overarching themes.
I do know one thing--I much prefer having our "general discussion" mode of providing balance/ getting a man's input on the SS lesson, than having men as teachers for the women's classes. There are some churches where they feel that the women should not be teaching the SS adult classes--even to their own gender.”
Quoting again–more specifically about general discussion:
About the sharing time/ general discussion debate I wonder if it becomes a question of how we wish to do our worship, (even though the general discussion times may not have necessarily been thought of as times of worship). I found a book recently on one of my friends' bookshelves and wish to read it: People in the Presence of God , by Barry Liesch. I found his overview in the introduction interesting. He noted 5 basic worship models in the Bible:
(I’ve taken the liberty to do some re-formatting to make it a little easier to read.)
I. Family worship (Pre-Sinai model: Parent-led worship in the family) Model #1
II. Small-group worship
A. Pauline model: body life–charismatic worship (dynamics of improvisation, Spirit-guided unity, maximum participation obtainable in small groups–I Cor. 14:26) Model #2
B. Synagogue worship (basic to many Protestant churches, emphasizes structured liturgy and accords a prominent place to worship, Scripture reading, and biblical exposition) Model #3
III. Large-group worship
A. Tabernacle/Temple worship (Tabernacle worship includes elements of worship such as drama, symbolism, the fine arts, and Davidic praise. Temple worship is special-events worship.)
Model #4
B. Revelation worship–worship in heaven (including elements from all of the models, but mostly the tabernacle/temple. It is inclusive, consummate, and timeless.) Model #5
Barry Liesch is an associate professor of music at Biola University in CA. As I said, I picked up the book because I thought it looked interesting. In glancing through it, I thought "this could make an interesting topic for Wednesday evening."
Some from our type of background may have similar reactions to Donald Hustad, who wrote the foreword to the book. He writes, "Reading the manuscript, at times I was not sure that I could agree sufficiently to write this foreword." . . . He continues though to say, "But I continued to read--and discovered that there is much here that will be helpful to any reasonable person."
Rachel continues: "Viewing the question (what to do about the general discussion) from afar, to me the general discussion has been good to potentially provide summary and balance to the individual classes. I liked having it. At the same time, I can see why people wish to have more personal ways of connecting with the group, especially since the group is big and this element can more easily be lost with size."
After her first email, my response to her contained the following, about the difficulty of saying something positive about general discussion without seeming to be against the sharing time, which I do believe has been profitable:
Mrs. I here: “ . . . I think even Amish Mennonites can follow fads in how church happens, and the touchy feelly fad is one possible bunny trail we might follow. I really don't have anything, though, against what has been happening in our share times. What I really object to is what sometimes comes across to me as being dismissive or disdainful toward our general discussion.”
In a later email, after affirming the idea of exploring a "both/and" option instead of only "either/or" options, Rachel added: I would like to see the discussion of Scripture and how it applies to me going more hand in hand. It seems to me formatting it this way, you could have the general discussion/ share time going from 10:25 to 10:50 with singing, share time and general discussion happening all in the same time. The one leading it would give conscious thought as to how these dimensions could smoothly flow together so that the whole would become a worshipful experience, not just "now we do this," and then "now we do the next thing." So much for now. . .
I’m putting the ballot paper aside till the best response becomes more clear to me. In the meantime, I’m listening and praying, emailing Rachel--and blogging, obviously.
posted by Mrs. I at
4:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home