Church Mouse seems not to have considered the possibility that Generation Z people may count Zoom church as attendance, whereas denominations count only ‘those coming in through the door’. This may account for at least some of the disparity between numbers claiming to attend church, and numbers counted as being present.
Not just Gen Zers, either. I often attend Zoom church myself, and there may be a dozen or more of us online – many of us older.
But should Generation Z people count Zoom church as ‘attendance’, particularly those who are in rude health and well able to attend physical Church?
Anglicanism values place and presence; its sensibilities are earthed, communal and (potentially) sacramental. Zoom church, by ignoring the physical, appears to ignore the incarnation too.
I think it’s rather ridiculous to claim that Zoom church ignores the incarnation. The incarnation teaches that God left the safety and security of the heavens and came among us as one of us. All too often, physical church buildings serve the opposite purpose: instead of us going out and incarnating the presence of Christ in the streets and homes of ordinary people, we feel we have to leave all that5 behind and go to a ‘holy place’ to meet God.
The incarnation is about mission. All too often, traditional physical church ion ancient sanctuaries ignores mission altogether.
OTOH, on-line communication can also cut us off from mission. When sitting in front of a screen and watching a service from afar is sufficient to be in touch with God and the community, why rouse yourself to attend to the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the lonely?
I guess, Pat, an accurate answer to that question would require adequate statistics about both groups of people and whether or not they are involved in missional activities. Do you have such statistics? I’d be happy to be enlightened. But if you don’t, it’s just presupposition, isn’t it?
No stats, but anecdotally, while my parish has a fairly large “audience” for our services online, the turnout for our mission activities (feeding the poor and homeless, as an example) remains the same folk we see in church on Sunday, no new faces.
Possibly many of those worshipping online are engaging in mission and social care elsewhere? Or perhaps can’t turn up in person for your mission activities for the same reasons they can’t turn up to church. They might nevertheless be witnessing to neighbours, colleagues, or carers.
Mission is essential to the Church’s identity, that is a given. But mission as a discreet activity – mission that does not proceed from worship – reduces the Church to the merely functional.
The ‘holy places’ and ‘ancient sanctuaries’ you dismiss are where the gathered people are sent out week by week, quietly building up social and spiritual capital in the places in which they are set.
I can’t see why it’s any more essential that mission proceeds from worship than that worship proceeds from mission. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I’m not dismissing ‘holy places’ and ‘ancient sanctuaries’. I fully accept that those who worship in them may well believe in mission and practice it. You, however, have definitely dismissed those who attend online church and have accused them of ignoring the incarnation. Personally, I’m happy to worship with a congregation in person. But I can think of all kinds of reasons why this might not be possible for everyone. for example: Elderly… Read more »
Nowhere have I dismissed – still less, judged – anyone in the categories you have listed. Neither have I accused young people in good health who attend Zoom church of ignoring the incarnation. My criticism is of the medium not the man (or woman).
I’m delighted that my church live-streams its Parish Eucharist, with Communion taken to the sick and housebound. Yet, necessity apart, there is something missing about Zoom as a medium, and that something is the physical. I can no more exchange the peace on Zoom than I can taste the coffee on a Nespresso advert.
The Zoom church I attend projects the images of Zoomers onto a wall. At the Peace, those attending in person wave to us and we wave to them. So we are exchanging the Peace.
But you still can’t taste the coffee (although given what passes for coffee in some churches, this might be a mercy).
Zoom Eucharists lack touch as the medium in sacramental exchange. In both baptism and Communion, we receive from the hand of another. Communion by Zoom, with the individual taking bread and wine for him/herself, is certainly spiritual communion; yet it’s not the same as receiving from another.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that spiritual communion is deficient: “Believers who cannot physically receive the sacrament are to be assured that they are partakers by faith of the body and blood of Christ and of the benefits he conveys to us by them.” Notes to Communion for the Sick.
I can see that the physical element is very important to you. But I can’t see why you are so set on rubbing it in, to those of us who can’t attend in person, what we are missing.
Janet, please see my clarification, which appears to have crossed with your post. Most of my posts were in response to Tim Chesterton, who worships “with a congregation in person”. I’m sorry if they’ve caused you hurt.
Allan, your replies to me have implications for thousands people in Janet’s situation. You can’t just wiggle out of that. Dave Lucas, who founded the online resource ‘The Ordinary Office’, kept trying to emphasize this point, despite all the disparaging comments made by purists (see https://www.ordinaryoffice.org/dave). And my point remains: Zoom services (and by the way, not every church that broadcasts online does it on Zoom – Facebook and YouTube are very popular too) are not ‘ignoring the incarnation’. The Incarnation is God leaving God’s own comfort zone and coming into our life as one of us. Churches that decide… Read more »
Nothing against online resources, Tim. As a retiree I pray the (non sacramental) Common Worship Daily Offices alone that way and in doing so feel at one with the Church catholic. My initial post – “Zoom church, by ignoring the physical, appears to ignore the incarnation” – was provocative. However your latest post – “your replies to me have implications for thousands people in Janet’s situation” – which you then accuse me of trying to “wriggle out of”, is intemperate if not insulting. As you clearly haven’t read my previous post in which my comments are directed at “the medium… Read more »
When you refer to mission as a ‘discreet activity’, are you excluding the more flamboyant forms, such as big rallies? Or do you perhaps mean ‘discrete’?
The issue is not what you or I count as ‘real’ church attendance. It’s what those being surveyed count, and therefore influences the way they reply.
But I actually think that Zoom church is a very good example of the Incarnation: God being with us in our own homes, no matter the state of our health or what we’re wearing. Maybe it’s traditional church, requiring us to be presentable and attend a special building, which ignores the Incarnation?
Janet, why do I get the feeling neither you nor Tim Chesterton are fully paid up members of Save the Parish? That aside, I too have a problem with churches where you have to be presentable. Peace be with you.
I’m not a member of Save the Parish, but I am very much in favour of local parish churches – when they’re working well.
However, it’s some 7 or 8 years since I was well enough to attend a church in person, and I do resent the implication that the online churches which are my spiritual lifeline ‘ignore the Incarnation’. They’re excellent examples of the Church reaching out to people in their need, and wherever they are.
Actually – as a Gen Zer – I am sympathetic to denominations counting people coming through the door (I mean, it’s still a thumb on the scales, but…). Just getting people a little older than me to cross the threshold can be – anecdotally – like pulling teeth. That youngsters see church buildings as something positive, even if that is just as someplace to host a club, is something.
Hi Janet, I do try to include some information about online “attendance” in the Church of England stats, for which I am responsible. It’s not straightforward to measure, thanks to the unhelpful metrics provided by some of the commonly-used platforms (whose headline “views” figure counts views that only last a few seconds, and are likely to be caused by autoplay – there are cases where this inflates figures by a factor of 50 or so!). Attendance at live Zoom services is easier to count than some other online worship, assuming people keep their cameras on. My best, and rather vague,… Read more »
This records also depends on churches/clergy valuing on line attendance enough to record it. Our church Zooms the Sunday morning service every week, and has some regular attenders, nearly always those who are housebound, or who are unwell for one or two weeks, though I also learned that the relatives ( grand parents?) of a family often join to share worship with their family. BUT the numbers have never been requested by those who record services, though it would be relatively easy to count screens, even if not people. I see no sign of numbers being recorded in the service… Read more »
Hi Anon, Yes, you’re quite right – there’s no established way of recording online attendance, as well as no official way of counting it. Even if there were, that wouldn’t mean everyone did it. Any Canon Lawyers reading this might have helpful advice about whether online services fall within the definition of services; I guess not, since canon F12 says “Every service held at the church or chapel, including the Occasional Offices and whether or not a service of public worship, shall be recorded in the register book” [my italics]. It also says that “the number of persons attending the… Read more »
Thank you for your reply, Ken, and for the work you do to gather data and present it in ways that are helpful for churches to see where they fit into the overall picture. I realise that what goes into service registers is a mix of accurate counting and realistic guestimates; and in this case definitions of what is a service! But it is helpful , I think, to have a sense of those who choose to join our worship in different ways. I will have a conversation about the Statistics for Mission locally.
John Pockett
22 days ago
It’s pretty obvious what the Church in Wales Bench of Bishops think is action in the current crisis facing the church and emanating from Bangor. I wrote on Sunday to the Bishop of St Asaph, as senior bishop, to express my concerns and ask for action. Here below is the really rather pathetic, non-reply I received a little earlier. “In consultation with the archbishop” he writes in his reply. Andrew John obviously does not get it that he is a major part of the problem; sadly, tragically even, the other bishops obviously think the same. Dear John Pockett On behalf… Read more »
Sadly +St Asaph’s response exemplifies why how the internal CiW processes are being used renders them absolutely not fit for purpose. Does he not recognise that the use of the phrase ‘in consultation with the Archbishop’ reveals to all he has absolutely no appreciation of the term ‘conflict of interest’, which makes +St Asaph also unfit to preside over any disciplinary or enquiry process relating to the Bangor situation?
Pax
22 days ago
Maybe I’m missing something, but I wonder if Mark Clavier’s piece would be more convincing if it referenced ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ etc?
I fear the CinW is trapped in a self-magnifying spiral of doom which only divine intervention can save.
Am I the only reader to be horrified that this thread has reached 37 comments so far without one acknowledgement of the powerful piece by Anon reproduced from ‘Surviving Church’ ? Its publication is all the more pertinent within the current mix of topics- the shameful new non -independent safeguarding post , fall out from the Makin review. But it is very easy to ignore what has happened to victims and survivors and the current issue over LLF will no doubt provide sound and fury for pages to come and contribute to freezing survivors out. Anon, you are very brave… Read more »
Thank you, Susanna. If even one person feels ‘seen,’ it is worth it. I am keen to speak of my experiences openly. I yearn to do so, and there are nights where I am so tempted. But I will continue to wait for the right time. I do not want to give anyone a reason to say I did something wrong. I’ve learned that survivors have to be without spot or blemish, and even when they are – when they do the right thing by reporting – they are still treated poorly. I found comfort in expressing myself, however obliquely,… Read more »
Church Mouse seems not to have considered the possibility that Generation Z people may count Zoom church as attendance, whereas denominations count only ‘those coming in through the door’. This may account for at least some of the disparity between numbers claiming to attend church, and numbers counted as being present.
Not just Gen Zers, either. I often attend Zoom church myself, and there may be a dozen or more of us online – many of us older.
But should Generation Z people count Zoom church as ‘attendance’, particularly those who are in rude health and well able to attend physical Church?
Anglicanism values place and presence; its sensibilities are earthed, communal and (potentially) sacramental. Zoom church, by ignoring the physical, appears to ignore the incarnation too.
I think it’s rather ridiculous to claim that Zoom church ignores the incarnation. The incarnation teaches that God left the safety and security of the heavens and came among us as one of us. All too often, physical church buildings serve the opposite purpose: instead of us going out and incarnating the presence of Christ in the streets and homes of ordinary people, we feel we have to leave all that5 behind and go to a ‘holy place’ to meet God.
The incarnation is about mission. All too often, traditional physical church ion ancient sanctuaries ignores mission altogether.
OTOH, on-line communication can also cut us off from mission. When sitting in front of a screen and watching a service from afar is sufficient to be in touch with God and the community, why rouse yourself to attend to the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the lonely?
I guess, Pat, an accurate answer to that question would require adequate statistics about both groups of people and whether or not they are involved in missional activities. Do you have such statistics? I’d be happy to be enlightened. But if you don’t, it’s just presupposition, isn’t it?
No stats, but anecdotally, while my parish has a fairly large “audience” for our services online, the turnout for our mission activities (feeding the poor and homeless, as an example) remains the same folk we see in church on Sunday, no new faces.
Possibly many of those worshipping online are engaging in mission and social care elsewhere? Or perhaps can’t turn up in person for your mission activities for the same reasons they can’t turn up to church. They might nevertheless be witnessing to neighbours, colleagues, or carers.
Mission is essential to the Church’s identity, that is a given. But mission as a discreet activity – mission that does not proceed from worship – reduces the Church to the merely functional.
The ‘holy places’ and ‘ancient sanctuaries’ you dismiss are where the gathered people are sent out week by week, quietly building up social and spiritual capital in the places in which they are set.
I can’t see why it’s any more essential that mission proceeds from worship than that worship proceeds from mission. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I’m not dismissing ‘holy places’ and ‘ancient sanctuaries’. I fully accept that those who worship in them may well believe in mission and practice it. You, however, have definitely dismissed those who attend online church and have accused them of ignoring the incarnation. Personally, I’m happy to worship with a congregation in person. But I can think of all kinds of reasons why this might not be possible for everyone. for example: Elderly… Read more »
Nowhere have I dismissed – still less, judged – anyone in the categories you have listed. Neither have I accused young people in good health who attend Zoom church of ignoring the incarnation. My criticism is of the medium not the man (or woman).
I’m delighted that my church live-streams its Parish Eucharist, with Communion taken to the sick and housebound. Yet, necessity apart, there is something missing about Zoom as a medium, and that something is the physical. I can no more exchange the peace on Zoom than I can taste the coffee on a Nespresso advert.
The Zoom church I attend projects the images of Zoomers onto a wall. At the Peace, those attending in person wave to us and we wave to them. So we are exchanging the Peace.
But you still can’t taste the coffee (although given what passes for coffee in some churches, this might be a mercy).
Zoom Eucharists lack touch as the medium in sacramental exchange. In both baptism and Communion, we receive from the hand of another. Communion by Zoom, with the individual taking bread and wine for him/herself, is certainly spiritual communion; yet it’s not the same as receiving from another.
To be clear, I’m not claiming that spiritual communion is deficient: “Believers who cannot physically receive the sacrament are to be assured that they are partakers by faith of the body and blood of Christ and of the benefits he conveys to us by them.” Notes to Communion for the Sick.
I can see that the physical element is very important to you. But I can’t see why you are so set on rubbing it in, to those of us who can’t attend in person, what we are missing.
Janet, please see my clarification, which appears to have crossed with your post. Most of my posts were in response to Tim Chesterton, who worships “with a congregation in person”. I’m sorry if they’ve caused you hurt.
I’ll leave it there.
Allan, your replies to me have implications for thousands people in Janet’s situation. You can’t just wiggle out of that. Dave Lucas, who founded the online resource ‘The Ordinary Office’, kept trying to emphasize this point, despite all the disparaging comments made by purists (see https://www.ordinaryoffice.org/dave). And my point remains: Zoom services (and by the way, not every church that broadcasts online does it on Zoom – Facebook and YouTube are very popular too) are not ‘ignoring the incarnation’. The Incarnation is God leaving God’s own comfort zone and coming into our life as one of us. Churches that decide… Read more »
Nothing against online resources, Tim. As a retiree I pray the (non sacramental) Common Worship Daily Offices alone that way and in doing so feel at one with the Church catholic. My initial post – “Zoom church, by ignoring the physical, appears to ignore the incarnation” – was provocative. However your latest post – “your replies to me have implications for thousands people in Janet’s situation” – which you then accuse me of trying to “wriggle out of”, is intemperate if not insulting. As you clearly haven’t read my previous post in which my comments are directed at “the medium… Read more »
Thank you, Allan.
The list is quite long when you start making it!
What does ‘mission’ mean?
When you refer to mission as a ‘discreet activity’, are you excluding the more flamboyant forms, such as big rallies? Or do you perhaps mean ‘discrete’?
Many thanks, Janet. My carelessness. I meant ‘discrete’ as in ‘individually distinct’.
The issue is not what you or I count as ‘real’ church attendance. It’s what those being surveyed count, and therefore influences the way they reply.
But I actually think that Zoom church is a very good example of the Incarnation: God being with us in our own homes, no matter the state of our health or what we’re wearing. Maybe it’s traditional church, requiring us to be presentable and attend a special building, which ignores the Incarnation?
Janet, why do I get the feeling neither you nor Tim Chesterton are fully paid up members of Save the Parish? That aside, I too have a problem with churches where you have to be presentable. Peace be with you.
I’m not a member of Save the Parish, but I am very much in favour of local parish churches – when they’re working well.
However, it’s some 7 or 8 years since I was well enough to attend a church in person, and I do resent the implication that the online churches which are my spiritual lifeline ‘ignore the Incarnation’. They’re excellent examples of the Church reaching out to people in their need, and wherever they are.
Save the Parish is not operating in my country!
Well said, Janet.
Actually – as a Gen Zer – I am sympathetic to denominations counting people coming through the door (I mean, it’s still a thumb on the scales, but…). Just getting people a little older than me to cross the threshold can be – anecdotally – like pulling teeth. That youngsters see church buildings as something positive, even if that is just as someplace to host a club, is something.
In my parish in the USA, we are taking that approach–offering our space to a dance group and a musical theater program for teens and pre-teens.
Hi Janet, I do try to include some information about online “attendance” in the Church of England stats, for which I am responsible. It’s not straightforward to measure, thanks to the unhelpful metrics provided by some of the commonly-used platforms (whose headline “views” figure counts views that only last a few seconds, and are likely to be caused by autoplay – there are cases where this inflates figures by a factor of 50 or so!). Attendance at live Zoom services is easier to count than some other online worship, assuming people keep their cameras on. My best, and rather vague,… Read more »
Thanks Ken, that’s helpful.
This records also depends on churches/clergy valuing on line attendance enough to record it. Our church Zooms the Sunday morning service every week, and has some regular attenders, nearly always those who are housebound, or who are unwell for one or two weeks, though I also learned that the relatives ( grand parents?) of a family often join to share worship with their family. BUT the numbers have never been requested by those who record services, though it would be relatively easy to count screens, even if not people. I see no sign of numbers being recorded in the service… Read more »
Hi Anon, Yes, you’re quite right – there’s no established way of recording online attendance, as well as no official way of counting it. Even if there were, that wouldn’t mean everyone did it. Any Canon Lawyers reading this might have helpful advice about whether online services fall within the definition of services; I guess not, since canon F12 says “Every service held at the church or chapel, including the Occasional Offices and whether or not a service of public worship, shall be recorded in the register book” [my italics]. It also says that “the number of persons attending the… Read more »
Thank you for your reply, Ken, and for the work you do to gather data and present it in ways that are helpful for churches to see where they fit into the overall picture. I realise that what goes into service registers is a mix of accurate counting and realistic guestimates; and in this case definitions of what is a service! But it is helpful , I think, to have a sense of those who choose to join our worship in different ways. I will have a conversation about the Statistics for Mission locally.
It’s pretty obvious what the Church in Wales Bench of Bishops think is action in the current crisis facing the church and emanating from Bangor. I wrote on Sunday to the Bishop of St Asaph, as senior bishop, to express my concerns and ask for action. Here below is the really rather pathetic, non-reply I received a little earlier. “In consultation with the archbishop” he writes in his reply. Andrew John obviously does not get it that he is a major part of the problem; sadly, tragically even, the other bishops obviously think the same. Dear John Pockett On behalf… Read more »
Sadly +St Asaph’s response exemplifies why how the internal CiW processes are being used renders them absolutely not fit for purpose. Does he not recognise that the use of the phrase ‘in consultation with the Archbishop’ reveals to all he has absolutely no appreciation of the term ‘conflict of interest’, which makes +St Asaph also unfit to preside over any disciplinary or enquiry process relating to the Bangor situation?
Maybe I’m missing something, but I wonder if Mark Clavier’s piece would be more convincing if it referenced ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ etc?
I fear the CinW is trapped in a self-magnifying spiral of doom which only divine intervention can save.
Am I the only reader to be horrified that this thread has reached 37 comments so far without one acknowledgement of the powerful piece by Anon reproduced from ‘Surviving Church’ ? Its publication is all the more pertinent within the current mix of topics- the shameful new non -independent safeguarding post , fall out from the Makin review. But it is very easy to ignore what has happened to victims and survivors and the current issue over LLF will no doubt provide sound and fury for pages to come and contribute to freezing survivors out. Anon, you are very brave… Read more »
Thank you, Susanna. If even one person feels ‘seen,’ it is worth it. I am keen to speak of my experiences openly. I yearn to do so, and there are nights where I am so tempted. But I will continue to wait for the right time. I do not want to give anyone a reason to say I did something wrong. I’ve learned that survivors have to be without spot or blemish, and even when they are – when they do the right thing by reporting – they are still treated poorly. I found comfort in expressing myself, however obliquely,… Read more »