Day -3: Let me try to restate a past post

Since I think “out-loud,” a lot of what gets into this blog is just that – thinking out loud. It is problematic at times because some will take everything I post as being what I think is gospel truth, when in actuality it is just ruminations. Of course, in all the ruminating what I do believe at any given period in time does come through.
When I think about the past post “What is going on with me?” as I tried to express some of the unexpected anger I was feeling over yesterday’s Eucharist, I realize that this is probably what I really want to say:
When we gather together from 16 different countries and from every area in this country in a worship space that accommodates 3,500 people at a convention where approximately 10,000 participate in one form or another, in order to have any sense of “common prayer” it seems that we would want to do that which is most familiar and easiest to comprehend.
It often seems, however, that those who plan these kinds of services see them as an opportunity to do the unexpected, the unusual, the “innovative,” the different in order to expose people to new things. I understand that, but when we have the common convention Eucharist, I don’t see how doing such things enable us to worship together, even though I know that while in English and according to the established forms of the Prayer Book will frustrate and anger some.
Yesterday, there was the U2 Eucharist. At some point soon there will be the Hip-Hop Eucharist. I suspect there will also be Eucharists in Spanish, perhaps French and German, too. Okay, so what about Anglo-Catholics? What about Charistmatics? This church allows for such a breadth of piety, and I believe this strengthens us and provides for the needs of many different kinds of people. A strength, yes, but when we have a common service, it should be in a form that will speak to and meet the needs of the vast majority of those participating.
That’s just my opinion.
On another topic – the battles have begun.
It came home to me yesterday that the different sides of the most pressing issues really do not understand their opponents. That is a shame, and it hinders us from coming to any kind of compromise. The really sad aspect of it all is that too many do not even want to understand their opponents.
The way I see it, do everything you can to get into the skin of one’s opponent to truly understand their perspective. Then, one can argue against it, but one doesn’t have to demonize the other in the process. And, incidentally, the original opinion held by the one doing the investigating may actually be changed in some way. A meeting of the minds may well be able to be accomplished at that point, even if to amicably agreeing to disagree.