CHOICE OF GREENBELT SERVICE
Folks, you'll have seen my e-mail on this. We have a very limited amount of time in which to decide (by next weekend), and the only way to make the decision is really via a poll as already advertised. Experience shows that "reply to all" is a very unpopular way of conducting discussions, but to open out discussion here is a blog post and comments section to which you are invited to contribute with any opinions.
The text of my e-mail ran as follows:
The GB alt.worship team need our description of the service by 10th June, as this is the deadline for the advert which will go in the GB programme. Obviously 10th June is the date of the June service itself, so we need to make the choice of service for GB before that day. This is not quite what we were expecting (!), but the GB team have a lot to organise and we need to work with their requirements.
Given that last September's service was deliberately minimal following a fairly exhausting time at GB06, and "Frozen" from December 2006 was very much a winter service and involved some not-very-easy-to-transport props (an ice sculpture!)... there are probably only two practical contenders, namely "Unknowing God" from March 2007, and "FEARLOVELOVEFEAR" which will be the June 2007 service.
As to the choice between these two, I'd like to conduct a quick straw poll of those involved in creating both these services, and anyone else in Foundation who has any thoughts on the subject. Here are some relevant considerations to bear in mind:
Health and safety - Both services are Greenbelt-compatible from Health & Safety perspective.
Ease of transport to festival context - "Unknowing God" was deliberately light on props and set-up, as we created the service having the potential Greenbelt context in mind. I understand that "FEARLOVELOVEFEAR" involves the building of stations, although perhaps these may be easily transportable so that they can be set up in the venue in half an hour? I defer to the June team!
Suitability of content - Whichever service we choose would in any case be adapted for suitability to the Greenbelt context. In the case of "Unknowing God" this would involve shortening to within an hour (e.g. removing some of the opening section) and, if not softening, then at least careful handling, of some of its stronger elements. "FEARLOVELOVEFEAR" is at present a bit of an unknown quantity for most of us - which is why the team's input would be welcome, so that we're not flying blind!
Either way, a service with some hard-hitting elements should be acceptable for the GB context. In fact, it is arguably welcome in view of (i) the festival's professed aspiration to be edgy and honest (as Steve observes), and also (ii) the wish to be distinctive given the large amount of potentially quite same-y alt.worship which may be happening! As a positive example, Ikon have gained a national reputation by presenting challenging material over successive years in the GB context - so this is certainly not something to be afraid of. The important point will be how the service is introduced and pastorally handled, and we will be taking special care over this whichever option is chosen.
So - views welcome.
Tim
posted by Richard Wheeler at 1:15 PM
10 Comments:
It feels like we are in a very difficult situation here. As someone who was involved in the Unknowing God service I think it has some potential but it would need work. Given responses to the service I am not sure it can go without some serious work on it.
I have no idea about FLLF. Until I am part of it I can not offer any comment.
I am assuming GB need to know?- Title, H&S requirements, technical requirements, suitability of content and some sort of blurb?
Is the FLLF team ready to give this information to us? If so then perhaps it would be useful for us to see this - and the UG spec - alongside each other. If not then potentially we are offered little choice and have to go for UG - trusting that alterations that suit the community and the GB service group will be made.
the other question is who is actually available to make the service happen? If we know who is going and who is prepared to put the work in it might affect our choices.
I am going. So is Mark. But we also have Eva with us so this may need thinking about.
I am happy to work further on UG or contribute to making any other service work.
Or perhaps without concensus our choice is to not offer a service this year.
Any of these options are difficult.
I am praying for decernment and for those who ultimately make this choice...cos I suspect we are caught between a rock and a hard place with this.
6:43 AM
Ellen,
There may be a third way here, which I have just been talking about with Paul.
GB need our brochure wording by Sunday, and it is this deadline that is causing the difficulty. How about Paul sends some fairly generic wording for this purpose, describing Foundation and calling our worship event the "big alt" (or something) - and saying that it is a sample of our worship from one of our large gatherings in Bristol?
Then Sunday's service can happen without any final decision having been reached. This comments section can remain open beyond the service, and we can stall the final decision until the later deadline of Tuesday evening. We do have to have an answer by then, as the more detailed information (a service description for health and safety) needs to be with GB by Wednesday.
This has the added benefit that Wednesday night's Meal at Ed and Claire's can be kept free of business and discussion, we can all relax, and the process will have been as even-handed as is reasonably possible in these tricky circumstances!
It's not ideal, but it may be the best option we've got. What do people think?
As for team members: whichever service we use, I'll be happy to help out with planning and execution. Iain has said he will too, and then there's you and Mark - and hopefully quite a few others too; whether or not they were included in the original team for the relevant service.
T
8:14 AM
The information that GB need *before* the service (10th June) is for the Programme. The information for H&S and Fire Dept must be in Wednesday of next week. Absolute latest deadlines in each case, no negotiation possible.
Therefore there seem to be three possible choices of action:
a) We make up our mind on title before Sunday, and get the info off in time for the Programme deadline of 10th June.
b) We decide not to do Greenbelt.
c) We go for the compromise of general entry in the Programme (without specifying which service we are doing), and make the final choice on Monday/Tuesday of next week in time for the H&S and Fire details deadline.
I think b) would be a bit of an extreme option in the light of the compromise afforded by c). a) is still an option too. However, there is a lot of silence about this both on this blog and via email. Without further input, when I make the decision, I won't have much to go on at this rate.
9:46 AM
At the moment I'm inclined to say that we should take Unknowing God in an adapted format that will fit 1 hour and not make unreasonable demands of the autobiographical storytellers.
2:12 PM
I had a similar comment (to Becky's) by e-mail from Ed Davies - who has been involved in both services I believe.
Becky's would probably be my preferred route, although this isn't yet a very informed view. It stems from my positive feelings about UG, and its easy adaptability (and promising theme/content, and lightness on props and set-up) rather than any views on FLLF, which as yet I know very little about.
Speaking of UG: it's deliberately transportable with no stations and few props. I have reservations about the use of stations at a GB service: not only because of set-up hassle, but also because the service in the New Forms Cafe tends to be more compressed in both time and space - and a central "stations" section seems to me to sit less easily with that.
I also think that, if handled right, UG could be a challenging festival-opening service and set things off on an interesting note.
As I say, these opinions are subject to adaptation following Sunday. Obviously it's not fair to form a convinced view when one hasn't yet experienced one of the contenders firsthand. However thanks Becky for giving your view, as a key person on the FLLF team. It's a helpful steer.
1:01 AM
My vote would be for UG, because it was designed with GB in mind and because it should be fairly easy to adapt to a GB format. That is a very subjective view, however, as I know nothing about FLLF, which could be equally or more appropriate for GB!
I think either service would work well so long as a substantial number from the relevant planning team were willing to help organise the service. GB is supposed to be a relaxing break aswell (!) so I think the eventual planning team would need to be comfortable and/or familiar with the GB service, to avoid any unnecessary pressure in respect of the organisation.
1:15 AM
I agree with Iain. I believe that a substantial part of the original UG team (certainly me, Iain, Paul, Ellen and Mark - and probably various others too) would be willing to work further on the service and/or put it on at the festival. After all, this is what we originally hoped to do!
Is it fair to say - from Becky and Ed's comments, and the silence of others on the June team - that members of that team don't actually feel too strongly about reprising their service at GB? Perhaps Paul you could raise this for discussion at the team's meeting tomorrow night?
If that discussion endorses such a course, and there isn't a Foundation majority view to the contrary, it looks like Paul might after all have sufficient grounds to nominate UG as the GB service -and give a specific description accordingly for the brochure.
It would be good if this were possible. "Unknowing God" has a good ring to it, and would hopefully draw lots of people in. It's better than an unspecific description like "the big alt", which is a compromise that we could adopt IF it's felt to be the only reasonable way of proceeding. Right now I'm not sure that it is.
This is in no way an attempt to foreclose discussion! I am saying what's springing to mind in light of the responses and non-responses we have had to date.
5:19 AM
I'm warming to UG for two reasons:
a) FLLF has stations - and Tim's point carries weight IMHO.
b) We've had plenty of time to assess UG's suitability or otherwise, and it's still in the running by most folk. That won't be possible with FLLF.
That said, FLLF will be a fine service, but as to whether it's the best service to take to GB, I'm growing unsure.
P.
11:05 AM
Deadlines! I think we should go with the option of giving a generic description of Foundation for the programme and then see how things go on Sunday with the FLLF service.
It seems that UG is preferable from the perspectives of setting up and structure, but I think we'd have a clearer idea after the Big Service.
Personally I would love to see a form of the UG service produced again as we missed it the first time.
I would also be willing to help out this year, whateverthe decision.
2:29 AM
Hmmm... I'm leaning more in favour of a non-generic description now. From what I can tell, the FLLF *and* the UG team are coming down in favour of UG, and it would be a shame to miss out on the evocative title in the programme when it looks increasingly like UG will be the service!
7:29 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home