• High Church and Informal

    Someone coming out of church on Sunday who isn’t a regular at St Mary’s said to me, “That was great – exactly what I like – high church and informal”.

    I was pleased that the person had understood what we are trying to do. High church and informal is precisely one of the ways in which I would describe the worship at St Mary’s. (Liturgical but not stuffy is another way of describing the same thing).

    The combination of all the glories of high church worship with a relaxed sense of fun seems to me to be quite an attractive option for churches.

    Generally speaking, I think that churches tend to be successful if people feel that they are in some way happy to be there. Some people describe that as feeling at home though I’m not sure that I’d talk about it like that. I think some people like going to churches where they feel they might be able to make friends though the real goal is a church where some people come feeling that and some people come sure in the knowledge that people will leave them alone if they want to be alone.

    The word for describing the sensibility of a local church is (or at least used to be) churchmanship. In many ways, it is a rather unhelpful word now, with all its sexist connotations. However, we still need ways of speaking about what particular churches are like.

    Churches have been described by all kinds of words in the past. Churchmanship has sometimes been described in terms like anglocatholic, low church, high church, evangelical broad church, moderate. I was interested to see recently that some people were starting to use Greenbelt (after the famous Christian Arts festival) as a churchmanship kind of term.

    I’m also interested that people are increasingly bonding multiple identities together to form new identities in terms of church in the same way that they are doing over cultural identities. People think of themselves as Black British, Asian American, New Scot and so on, the modifier indicating something that the basic identifier does not fully convey. Thus in church we get things like Open Evangelical (which I think has meant low church, supportive of women in ministry but not supportive of gay people in ministry) and Liberal Catholic (which I think has meant less stuffy than anglocatholic in worship and supportive of women and gay people in ministry until it costs anything).

    There are many ways of describing St Mary’s. We are certainly trying to be a Black Shoe congregation, which I think tells you just about all you need to know. However, High Church and Informal also describes things very well and I came out of church very pleased that someone had got it.

    What “churchmanship” term would you want your congregation to be known by. And what’s a better and more inclusive word than churchmanship anyway?

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

  2. Jimmy Avatar

    Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.

  3. Jimmy Avatar

    Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

  4. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

    I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
    http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

  5. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

  6. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

  7. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

    There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

    I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Hurrah!

    Well, I was wrong about the girl with the bigot ring. She lost. However, a gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official’s job by a Church of England bishop.The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against “on grounds of sexual orientation” by the Hereford…

  • Book Review – Scottish Episcopal Clergy 1689-2000

    Scottish Episcopal Clergy 1689-2000 This is the definitive reference book of clergy who have served the Scottish Episcopal Church between 1689 and 2000. Includes information on each charge and each individual. Unique. Click here to order

  • Book Review – God in All Things

    The new book by Gerard Hughes is out now. Gerard Hughes’s popularity lies in the fact that he always writes directly for the individual struggling with issues of faith and life and gets right to the heart of spiritual needs and concerns. His best-seller God of Surprises published nearly 20 years ago has sold nearly…

  • Blog Off

    I’m on holiday for the next couple of weeks, so giving the blog a rest. There will either be spasmodic postings or no postings at all until I’m back. <BLOG OFF>