Organ, choir, liturgy, and genuine traditional worship in England 2019

[jbird604]

We're about to wrap up our 2019 vacation in the UK. Lots of great adventures (I even got to try out the pipe organ in a village church!) -- but the most exciting times for me have been the worship services we've attended.

We've caught a couple of Evensong services, and the Sunday morning Eucharist at York Minster that I already wrote about. And then the second Sunday morning we worshiped at Southwark Cathedral in London, and it was even better!

The amazing thing is that the church was FULL -- hardly an extra soul could've gotten inside and found a seat. And the same was true last summer when we attended a Sunday service in the same cathedral. Similar-size crowds were seen the past couple of years when attending services at Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's. If church attendance is sharply down in the UK, it is NOT apparently cutting into the crowds in the really great places of worship.

And not only did we see capacity crowds at these services, we saw people of all ages. Not just the blue-haired crowd, but families with young children, teenagers, young adults, singles, couples, well-dressed and more common-looking folks.

While most such churches do offer a children's service -- after the processional and opening acts, the very young children are taken to a different space for age-appropriate activities -- I am quite confident that not one of these churches has a "Youth Service" where the teens "worship" with head-banger music in a room painted black from floor to ceiling. And I never saw one video screen employed in a worship service. No "seeker-friendly" nonsense needed.

Last Sunday I was thrilled to note that children as young as about 10 were taking an active role in the service itself. In the offertory procession, a group of children obviously under 12 years old were carrying in the communion elements! And of course the choir was composed of youngsters for trebles -- both boys and girls, and of adults too, male tenors and basses, and women supplementing the young trebles.

What every service we've attended here had in common was superb music -- lovely choirs singing classically styled anthems, Psalms, and other service music; magnificent organs playing authentic classical pieces as appropriate; hymns sung in fully authentic hymn style, not one praise song or CCM "hit" tune, nothing sentimental or hokey in the least -- along with traditional liturgical format closely hewing to the BCP, magnificent processions, elaborate use of the traditional "hardware" of liturgical worship such as wands, crosses, incense, robes, etc.

This past Sunday's service at Southwark was one of the most awesome worship experiences of my life. Four children were brought by their families for baptism, and these baptisms were certainly "done up right" with all the ritual and ceremony one would expect, with words of instruction and encouragement for the families worked into nearly every element of the service. It was incredibly moving to me, and I of course did not know a single one of the kids or any of their families. But the way this congregation showed their welcoming, their support, their commitment to these little ones and their families, and the way every portion of the service built up that theme, just moved me to tears many times during the hour.

I'm convinced that I witnessed authentic faith on display in that service, and what I experienced gives me incredible hope for the future. The commercialized and phony "church growth" culture that has infested so much of American Christianity is so shallow and pointless by comparison, along with the silly and trite music that inhabits the churches that have fallen for this hoax. I can only hope that I will live to see the end of the current aberration in the American church, and a return to something like what I have witnessed so many times in these amazing holy places and in these holy hours in the UK.

Bottom line -- neither authentic faith nor authentic music are dead here!

[Pipeorganbuilder]

Thanks John for the uplifting information you witnessed during your visit. We can only hope to see our churches return to this.

Michael

[myorgan]

...just moved me to tears many times during the hour.

NO, John. Say it isn't so!;-)

It is refreshing to hear your assessment of what you have observed, and in what you have participated the last couple of weeks. Now, I'm quite curious to hear a native UK analysis of your observations-whether it's the exception, or the rule.

Thanks again for sharing your observations.

Michael

[Eric Mack]

What an encouragement. Thanks for sharing! Grace to you and safe travels.

Eric

[Organfella]

As usual a very encouraging writ from you John. Thank you. In a world where on the surface it often sometimes seems that ordinary traditional worship is weaning this really makes for good reading! May God continue to build and nourish His Church in this way. We are always thankful when we hear exciting observations like these.
Nico

[jbird604]

Of course attendance in the Cathedral services may not reflect the situation in the smaller churches around the country. No doubt that total numbers have gone down. But the lesson is that it doesn't take a pop style Sunday morning stage production to draw a crowd. Churches that have fallen for that lie are deceived.

As I have often said, as someone who was there in the late 60's when we Boomers rebelled against church as we knew it, what we were actually fed up with was the vapid dull lifeless rut into which our churches had fallen. Sunday after Sunday of repetitive, pointless, and badly done "programs" without spiritual power. The meaningless "song service followed by preaching" model that utterly dominated the evangelical church.

What was needed then and now is the return to historic, meaningful, spiritually powerful worship that will connect us with our Christian heritage through sacrament and liturgy. Today's rock and roll "worship" wants desperately to offer a connection but utterly fails because it is corrupt at the roots. Driven by money-grubbing rock stars and celebrity preachers and catering to the lowest common denominator of emotions, these shows are no different from secular entertainment and thus powerless to give spiritual life.

Yes, I'm pessimistic about current religion, but hopeful that a remnant of the faithful will survive to carry authentic spirituality into the future. I think I saw it with my own eyes.

[myorgan]

Sunday after Sunday of repetitive, pointless, and badly done "programs" without spiritual power. The meaningless "song service followed by preaching" model that utterly dominated the evangelical church.

What was needed then and now is the return to historic, meaningful, spiritually powerful worship that will connect us with our Christian heritage through sacrament and liturgy.

John,

Are your statements mutually exclusive? On the one hand, you're asking for a return to things like the Doxology, the Gloria Patri, The Lord's Prayer, responsive readings, and the like. On the other hand, you're bemoaning repetitive, pointless programs without spiritual power-which some would define as what you describe.

What do you see as the solution? Could you define what is historic, meaningful, and spiritually powerful worship?

Michael

[Organfella]

My two-cents worth: I would plead for Spirit filled, Bible centered preaching supplemented by hymns that re-enforce the messages. In my humble opinion there is really no other way. The statements often heard about wanting to "draw" people back to the Church (by appropriately selected music) begs the question: Where were the people in the first place? Has the contemporary Church and its methodologies let them down perhaps in their quest for direction? Volumes can be written about this type of thought but one must bear in mind that nowhere in the Scriptures is there any call for results, only total worship. The results will be worked by God Himself, certainly not people, not even the best believers....
Nico

[jbird604]

Michael, you certainly raise a valid question. Why would I be calling for a return to historic worship when I've just ranted about the meaningless, repetitive stuff that passed for worship in so many evangelical churches of the 60's? What is genuine historic worship and how is it different from the so-called "traditional" worship many of us grew up with?

Well, to quote a certain Arkansas politician when he was asked to define "porn" -- "I know it when I see it." Maybe I can't fully define "worship that works" but I know it when I experience it!

For example -- the Sunday morning activity that was called a worship service when I was a kid consisted of (1) a random selection of songs and hymns, chose without reference to the sermon or text or the season or anything else, just literally picked at random and sung off the cuff without any attention to subtlety or expression. (2) a scripture chosen by the preacher for his own reasons and a sermon which might or might not actually spring from that text's teachings, often crafted with the intent of drawing emotional responses and "decisions" (people coming down the aisle). (3) an "invitation" or altar call in which the preacher pleads with people to come down front and make a commitment, accompanied by the singing of a doleful old song about damnation and hell.

THAT WAS BORING AND REPETITIVE AND MEANINGLESS AND WAS NOT WORSHIP. Most of us took nothing home with us from it, were not spiritually fed or built up, were not led to encounter the Divine. Yet that was CHURCH for me, week after week, twice on Sunday and then again on Wednesday.

Little wonder that many of us were elated when "new songs" and new stuff like little dramas and skits, pantomime, and other "cute" things were introduced into the service by innovators of the late 60's and early 70's. We were delighted to have guitars and (gasp!) drums in the church house, anything to get rid of the boring old whiney Baldwin or Hammond spinet or old out of tune piano that had been our only instrument.

These early "experiments" with alternative service styles gave birth to today's "contemporary" churches where the whole Sunday morning who is just one string of modern songs with cute dramas and choreographed sequences, light shows, fog, and what have you. This stuff may be "exciting" the first time you see it, but it too eventually becomes BORING AND REPETITIVE AND MEANINGLESS. And most folks leave without having experience an encounter with the Divine, and without receiving spiritual food. Most take nothing "home" with them from this.

My conclusion is that when we rebelled against church as we knew it back in the 60's, what we got was in the long run no better. Just another gussied up version of the same thing -- pointless, nearly random music and entertainment, which is still usually followed with a sermon of the preacher's own choosing and that "invitation" thing, which may be done with more style and taste, but is still meaningless to the vast majority.

What I've come to believe in recent years, quite by accident, is that what I really needed back in 1969 (though I could hardly have known it then) was not "new music" and more "fun" and some quality "entertainment" to make church "meaningful" to me. What was lacking in church as I knew it was a genuine PLAN for leading worshipers to experience the Divine each time we met.

And I find that in the Anglican liturgy, specifically in the Lectionary readings, the planned prayers, the Psalms, and particularly in communion. And perhaps it means much more to me because I never experienced this growing up, and also because it is done so well, so beautifully in these wondrous cathedral churches of England.

But I think the modern mega-church, the "contemporary" worship scene, the "blended" worship that so many now offer -- all are doomed to burn themselves out because for the most part they do not offer that encounter with the Divine that was found in the ancient historic liturgy we non-liturgical Protestants tossed out (the baby with the bath water) several centuries ago.

At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[lizny]

You are describing my little Episcopal church in New York pretty well, the service is cohesive and the hymns always selected to support the texts or season. We are not growing though. We're a middling sized parish, but it's getting harder to drum up enough volunteers for things and let's not discuss the budget. We do, however, have glorious music.

[Peterboroughdiapason]

John, I'm afraid you have a very different view of Anglican Church Music to mine! (I'm in England.)

Yes the music in cathedrals and some larger churches is of a very high standard and very well ordered. Attendances in cathedrals has gone up rather than down. Many of the London churches have small professional choirs.

However in other churches attendances are mostly going down and down. The exception is the charismatic, evangelical places where the music is certainly not what you describe. Fewer churches now have any sort of choir, let alone a good one. There are fewer organists and many of those don't want to play in churches. Most churches are chronically short of money.

Perhaps there is someone here from the UK who'd like to be more upbeat?

Stephen

[jbird604]

Certainly what I experience in the Cathedrals is not representative of the state of affairs all over the Anglican world. But the fact that attendance is growing for the Cathedrals may mean that something important is happening there that is not happening in many other churches, in England and elsewhere.

I think the studious commitment to historic liturgy and musical discipline has a lot to do with it, and the result is an experience that folks will come back for again and again.

I might add that for me at least it doesn't take the full blown Anglican liturgy to lead me to the spiritual place I so love. I frequently find the same spiritual joy and satisfaction in my own little church, where our service is far less elaborate and our music on an entirely different level. But we do worship with a plan -- on the best Sundays the hymns and other music will all mesh gloriously with the Lectionary texts and the sermon. And every Sunday it is our goal to lead each worshiper to the throne of grace through a sequence of acts, culminating in communion, that are designed to connect us with one another, with the saints of the ages and around the world, and most vitally with the Divine.

Are we "growing?" By worldly standards, not much if any. We are holding on, cautiously optimistic that our congregation can stay together for a while longer. But numerical success is not the goal. And not what God asks of us either. We are seeking to be faithful, and to offer a glimpse of light to those who have eyes to see.

I may well be too proud of our little church, and we know that pride goes before a fall. But this seems like a good place to be right now, for me anyway.

[RogerM]

Hi John,

Hope your holiday was good. I recall that last year you visited several English cathedrals. Did you do so this time? It costs £12.50 to visit Canterbury Cathedral as a visitor rather than a worshipper, although as a resident of the city I get in for nothing. It costs a lot to maintain such historic buildings but I'm in two minds about places of worship charging high entrance fees. Do they charge similarly in the States?

Roger

Edit: I do realise your church buildings tend not to be as old as ours and the same considerations may not apply.

[jbird604]

We did visit some cathedrals, including York Minster, St. Paul's in London, Westminster Abbey, Southwark in London, Durham Cathedral. I think those were the only ones we got to this time. We also visited several parish and village churches. None of them of course charge for admission to a service, but some do charge folks who simply want to tour or take photos and walk around inside.

Some are rather pricey -- Westminster Abbey charged us £20 each ("senior" price), St. Paul's charged £17.50 each (also a "senior" discount price). Durham only asked for a voluntary "donation" of £3 each, which we gladly paid. York Minster charges £10.50 for seniors, and the ticket is valid for a whole year. We attended a service at Southwark but didn't go on a weekday for a tour. I seem to recall from last year that they do not charge admission but will gladly accept a donation. None of the village churches charged anything, though all had a donation box at hand, into which we normally dropped a few pounds.

As you mention, these churches are OLD and are often in need of very costly repairs. Most cathedrals and many small churches are in a constant state of restoration, working hard to keep the structures from crumbling. Few churches in the US are really old enough to be in need of the kinds of work we see being done in England. I honestly don't recall how much we have paid to visit some of the larger ones -- the "National Cathedral" in Washington DC, St. Patrick's in NYC, the Basillica of St. Louis. It seems to me that we have paid small admission prices to these and other large churches, probably just a few dollars. As in England, no churches here ever charge you to attend a service.

Interestingly, in England I noted that a lot of churches and cathedrals offer "free" organ concerts on a regular basis. Sometimes they will say that a voluntary collection will be taken or that gifts are appreciated, but there is usually no charge at the door. This is a nice thing for these churches to offer to people, something we don't get so often here.

The music in the services is always so awesome, I'd gladly pay just to hear it. I have paid good money at times to hear music that was not nearly so good! But people certainly expect to attend regular worship services without admission charge, and I hope that will always be the case. If the attendance continues to grow for these marvelous services, it may one day become necessary to arrive very early or to make reservations!

[RogerM]

Very interesting, John, thank you. I think £20 or thereabouts is outrageous and I would think twice about visiting a cathedral at that price, on principle. The Church of England is not short of a penny or two! I like Durham's approach and would happily make a voluntary donation in excess of that suggested, and feel good about it. When visiting local churches, which I do for the architecture and the history, like you I generally drop a pound or two in the donations box.

I can't imagine the Church will ever charge for attending to worship. I am not a regular churchgoer - Christmas, weddings and funerals - but that really would take the biscuit!

[jbird604]

Side effect of spending two weeks in England -- I should have expected this -- the Allen MDS-45 at church didn't sound very good to me this morning! First thing I noticed, as I stood in the rear of the church and started the processional hymn (which I always sequence using the Smart Recorder), was that our church really doesn't have much reverb time or sustain. The organ sounded choppy, like I was playing way too staccato and detached.

Next thing I noticed, which became more and more of a problem to me as the service went on, was that the Allen sounds too shrill. Higher pitched stops are too loud, lower pitched stops are not loud enough. I'll probably re-visit the voicing sometime this week, though there really isn't as much voicing latitude as one would need to correct all this, with its relatively limited number of TG cards and audio channels.

Yep, I should've expected to be spoiled by all the fine organs I heard in the course of attending several services. The only organ I played over there was a smallish but newly-renovated pipe organ in a village church, and TBH I was not impressed with it. That church was not much bigger, if any, than my home church, and the organ stops seemed to have very abrupt attack and decay with little reverb or sustain to smooth them out. As I tried it out I was thinking how much better the Allen back home sounds.

And in truth it sounds nice. It's just that my ears got so accustomed to those glorious organs, many of them voiced and maintained by Harrison & Harrison, being played in those fabulously live organ-friendly churches!

[RogerM]

Strange things are happening here in the UK. Rochester Cathedral has installed a crazy golf course in the nave and Norwich has just installed a helter skelter. You can pay your two pounds to view the mediaeval stone ceiling and then slide 55ft. down to the nave! Whatever next.

Edit: For the benefit of our American friends who may not be familiar with the expression, a helter skelter is a fairground installation comprising a slide winding round a tall tower. Crazy golf is otherwise known as miniature golf.

[Peterboroughdiapason]

It's fine, though: the Dean of Norwich says it's not a gimmick.

[jbird604]

Seems there is no shortage of tourists willing to pay to get inside the major cathedrals. When we went to St. Paul's we had to wait outside for a half hour while the queue inside at the ticket booth went down. There was a lengthy line outdoors in on/off rainy weather on the Tuesday we went there. Constant stream of visitors and tour groups filled at both York and Durham. Last year we were at Exeter and there were plenty of tourists there as well.

At the smaller and lesser known ones, such as Southwark in London, and Ripon in the north, we noted fewer tourists. In fact, touring the small ones is more pleasant because there aren't the throngs of other tourists bustling around. And my favorite place to worship in the UK is currently Southwark, far smaller than the other cathddrals in the London area, but as I described up there somewhere, the Sunday morning service was packed and was a marvelous experience.

I really can't imagine the cathedrals needing to employ gimmicks to get tourists to come!