Merseysider wrote:Yes, it is all about collaboration and communication – but it's also about listening. And, perhaps most importantly, about building relationships.
I agree. And listening is as much a part of communication as talking is, if not more. Was it Vox who talked about having two ears and one mouth? We need to listen twice as much as we speak. But listening is one thing. What we do with what we learn by listening is another. Two of your assembly may not have liked Chris Walker's Sanctus, but were they representative? You say that, on reflection, it wasn't going as well as other settings, so perhaps they were, but how do you know? Do we jump to please one person who says they dislike our use of the African drum in church, or do we listen to another two people who love it? On what basis would the MD make his/her decision then? The assembly's response is important, of course it is, but that response may not come from their mouths – they may be actively participating in their hearts, without opening their mouths. This is not what is envisaged, I know, but it may be what is happening nonetheless. In our parish, we are trying to undo years of 'them and us'. The choir sang everything and the congregation were allowed to join in with the hymns – and they did because they were the hymns they'd grown up with. The main choir (we have two) still operates like that whilst we, the alternative choir, try desperately to invite and include the congregation, whilst also choosing songs which truly support and enhance the liturgy – hence fewer trad. hymns. We are less popular, I think, despite the fact that we welcome the contribution and involvement of the assembly. I say we are less popular; we are with those who sing, but with those who prefer to listen (and there are lots), we have made a big impact in our parish.
Don't get me wrong; I should love to hear everyone singing along to everything. There is nothing more uplifting than a swell of voices in song, in praise to God. But just because everyone doesn't join in doesn't necessarily mean we are failing in our ministry, does it?
I agree with what you say about planning, and working together. And it is sad that our priest chooses not to be involved, but that is his prerogative. He is supportive and, I know, would say if he objected to anything; he is happy to leave it in our hands. I'd rather that than work with a difficult priest, as I have in the past. I'm not sure that your remarks about giving up are that defeatist, as Dot suggests. There does come a point where you grow weary of constantly butting heads with someone over the same issues. This is something I've experienced in my working life and the eventual answer for me was to walk away. I'm not sure that is defeatist. If one has tried, and failed, that's different from not trying.
It sounds like you are doing a grand job and having a really positive impact in your church, M. I'd love to come and visit sometime!
TT
