Corinne Ware remembers being struck by how tall the church was.
She was in England doing graduate work and happened upon St. Margaret’s Church, a 16th-century sanctuary next to Westminster Abbey. Everything seemed vertical ”” the pillars, the stained glass windows, the massive organ.
“I thought, whoever these people are, they understand mystery,” she recalled Monday morning as we sat in her office at the Seminary of the Southwest, an Episcopal seminary just north of the University of Texas. Ware, a slender, elegant woman who teaches ascetical theology, was sharing her own story as she explained to me the different types of worship Christians gravitate toward.
A Southern Baptist, Ware loved her church and the foundation it laid for her. But that day at St. Margaret’s, she realized she had a thirst for that kind of church experience. She would eventually become an Episcopalian.
I don’t trust ‘Christian Spirituality types’ tests, including our church’s “Network” program.
To me they are nothing more than ‘baptized astrology’.
The same as I feel Myers-Briggs is “Psychological astrology”.
Given the right ‘language’, anything SOUNDS good. It reminds me of the special by “the Amazing Randy”, where he ‘charted’ a class for a personalized horoscope. Came in the next day with the results in sealed envelopes, passed them out and had the class read them.
“How many think they see themselves 90 – 100 percent in the results?” Everyone raised their hands. “Now, pass yours back to the person behind you, person in back, bring yours to the front”. They were the same ‘chart’ copied 30 times and each person had the exact same thing.
That’s how valid I think personality tests are, as well. No thanks.
In HIs Peace
Jim E. <><
I haven’t read the book, and would like to hear from someone who has regarding my immediate peeve of the apparent focus in the book, or perhaps lack of focus, IF the person writing the article/review hasn’t inadvertantly left it out.
Ware apparently starts with this spoken difference of impression:
‘She noticed that, after leaving church on Sundays, one person might say, “What a wonderful service,” and another would shake his head and say, “I didn’t get anything out of it.”‘
Is this impression only a matter of personal preference? I didn’t appreciate Holmes’ discussion on the matter, either, because he also did not make a significant contribution to the element (if you will) of the Presence of the Holy Spirit in worship, and the worshipper’s ability, willingness, intention, expectation or discernment in recognition of that Presence.
For example, look at Saul’s Damascus Road experience. HE heard the voice of God speaking articulately to him. However, those AROUND him, although having heard some big sound, did not hear the words. How would the above contrast been played out with this story? Saul/Paul would say, “What a wonderful and terrifying experience”; his fellow travelers would say “I didn’t get anything out of it.” I have similar anecdotes from my own experiences in worship.
The end result, my peeve is, is that the personal responsibility of the individual worshipper, and of the corporate worship planners, is waived, and the lack of a good and meaningful experience in worship is explained by preferences (or, if the preference is gained, by blaming others for “poor” worship).
Planners, leaders and worshippers all have a responsibility for providing and praying for the best in worship they can accomplish and for the Presence of the Holy Spirit to inhabit their imperfect attempts to access Holy Ground.
My comments leave MUCH to be discussed, but the lack of awareness of the actual work and presence of the Holy Spirit, no matter what “spirituality preference” people bring is the core of my peeve.
Has anyone read the book, and can put my peeve to rest?
Well, who actually is responsible? It’s even easier for priests to shrug off their own responsibility for the liturgy– their own greater responsibility– by blaming people for reacting badly to what the ministers do. If the rector prefers to do a “pep rally for Jesus” kind of liturgy, how much is it the fault of the introverts in the congregation for feeling stressed out and unedified? (Well, yeah, LJ, I know there aren’t actually any introverts.)
CW,
I USED to be an introvert. And in some ways, still am. But God changed me in a big way when He came into my life. And He is still changing me today. The person I am today is not the same person I was 10, 15 or even 20 years ago.
Frankly, IF
*the minister prepares for the liturgy as if he really expected God to be there and
*prepared a sermon based on the Scripture that he expeted the people to actually hear and receive and
*the choir leader picks out music that is themed to the Scriptures and is theologically sound and
*the liturgical team (from ushers to altar guild to servers to readers) prepared as if they were serving the Lord, praying together before the service for the Lord’s blessing and
*the people came expecting all of the above and
with an attitude of serving the Lord (and not ‘getting entertained) in worship …
Then
I think the service will be well received by all present and all present will leave feeling they actually did get something out of it. 🙂
Well, LJ, I don’t know how I can really respond to that. Thirty years on, and I’m still an introvert. Maybe it means it didn’t “take”, and maybe it means that God intends me to suffer in church. At any rate, I look at your prescription, and to each principle, I find myself asking, “how”? It seems to me that clerics (and lay liturgists/critics) tailor their views of how your principles should be manifested according to their dispositions.
e-yep. Each priest/minister has their own unique Spirit-given style (I cor 11-14), and each parishoner, too, as does the ministry team.
Which is why prayer is so important, as is seeking the Lord at each step. And instead of asking “What am I GETTING from the service” perhaps a better question is “what am I GIVING to Him in the service”.
And it doesn’t mean it ‘didn’t take’ with you. It just means God gave you your own style and gifts. If you use what you have for His glory, how can you go wrong???
Like I said, my comments are not the complete subject. But the question of the presence of the Holy Spirit still remains. It is just as possible for an introvert to know of and experience the presence of the Holy Spirit in worship, as it is for the extrovert — and I’m certainly not suggesting that the extrovert has any leg up in that regard.
I do want to comment here that a finely crafted, finely honed, finely tuned liturgy with all its parts (whatever style) has much potential to leave no room for the presence of the Holy Spirit due to over-control by leadership.
My point above is that you might just find the style and kind of worship that really suits you — God knows, every style of worship known to man is readily available if you’re willing to spread your wings a little — but that doesn’t mean you will find yourself engaged in the Holiness of God in that worship. Thus, the notion of “spirituality style” is misleading. It speaks only of the satisfaction of the human spirit, and not the increasing awareness and understanding of God’s.
Myers-Briggs is at best an excuse for bad behavior and at worst the gateway to the new age movement. This Jungian approach has been around for a long time with regard to prayer. The troubling thing is that all this is ego centered and focuses on the peculiarities(?) of the individual.
[i]I do want to comment here that a finely crafted, finely honed, finely tuned liturgy with all its parts (whatever style) has much potential to leave no room for the presence of the Holy Spirit due to over-control by leadership.[/i]
As does the ‘free form’ style of worship. I’ve attended both over the years, and find the ‘free form’ is just as regulated and ‘scripted’ (probably not the best choice of words) as the Liturgical worship. It just ‘looks/sounds different’ so is considered ‘better’ in some circles.
Let’s not forget that for nearly 1600 years, there was only one style of worship available to the people — the liturgy. And we can tell from the writings of that time that many, many, MANY people were touched spoken to and called by God through that liturgy.
I’m convinced that the reformers were called by their own personalities and preferences and anti-Catholic feelings, not so much by the Spirit, to change worship from liturgical to ‘free form’, and that these are even more open to personality corruption than the liturgy (ever been manipulated by a skilled preacher in a Pentecostal or Baptist service? I have.)
In His Peace
Jim Elliott <>< (sorry I didn't 'sign' my previous posts)
PB,
I’ve seen Myers-Briggs used by churches as an excuse to NOT include certain persons in various ministries: “That person is an INJ, he/she is not suited to THIS committee!”. In other words, they didn’t want/like that person anyway, but now they have an excuse to exclude them legitimately.
PS to my #10
I’ve also seen some GREAT Catholic Charismatic services in the context of the Mass (St. Paul of The Cross, Singer Island Fl; Our Lady of Florida Monastary, Palm Beach Gardens, FL; Catholic Charismatic Conference, St. Leo Fl.) that were filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit, and left room for the exercising of the gifts. It CAN be done, the trick is finding out how to do it properly!
JE <><