A week ago, churches were still debating how to worship face to face, e.g. by communion in one kind. While most churches were in person a week ago, government order has shut down most if not all the churches in the most heavily affected states (New York, Massachusetts, Washington, California) as well as specific metropolitan regions.
Today, for the 4th Sunday of Lent, we “attended” service at our current church and peeked in on services (or watched replay excerpts) at four churches where we previously worshiped.
The three largest streamed on YouTube; a fourth used ChristianWorldMedia.com, while the smallest used FaceBook live. Two emailed links to PDF versions of the worship booklet. All had a sermon.
Such services can be assessed in terms of what works as worship, what works for worshippers, and what works for the church.
In my opinion, the pastoral goal of the online service should be to both reinforce the faith of those attending, and also providing reassurance and comfort to those attending online. Thus, a key goal is (or should be) to provide normalcy for faithful worshippers. At the same time — to be blunt — the online churches must remain relevant to their parishioners, who otherwise may not return when the crisis is over.
Below are the services ranked (purely subjectively) in terms of the degree of vibrancy and normalcy. This is also (with one exception) their order from largest (most resources) to smallest.
1. St. Matthew’s
St. Matthew’s provided a video window into an almost-normal service. The emailed booklet was almost identical to that used last year — with the full order of service, music for the chants and words for the hymns.From a technical standpoint, the church has been livestreaming for years because the cry room(s) are linked to the service by TV cables and not a pane of glass. The church had the best video quality, with an HD camera and a long shot showing the sanctuary and front of the nave.
Part of the normalcy came from having full music, as on every Sunday. There was an organ prelude and postlude, three hymns, the various chants of the (medieval) mass setting (Second Communion Service in Hymnal 1940), and anthems for the (non-existent) offertory and communion. This also included sung responses and some chanted prayers.
2. Christ Church
Christ Church had a camera on a chair near the altar, a tight short on the altar and altar party. There were no musicians, chanted prayers, and a single hymn at the end. The sermon was preached from a lectern moved on camera. Otherwise the service was pretty similar to the regular service.
The final hymn — “The King of Love My Shepherd Is” — was sung a capella by the clergy and handful of laity. The rector (by far the best singer of the clergy at the five services) led the melody for the first three verses and then switched to bass for the final verses — similar to an unaccompanied midweek service.
With a better camera angle and regular music, like #1 this also would have fully projected the feeling of normalcy.
3. St. James
This church also has experience streaming, with a long angle camera (and a close-in camera) filming from the choir loft. The music team — pianist and harpist — were playing hymns from the hymnal, and the order of service seemed similar to what I recall from my last in person visit. So other than the nearly-empty pews, this was a faithful video of an almost normal service.
4. Holy Communion
While the video quality and angle on the altar party were good, this felt a little sparse — a said Morning Prayer service with a 15 minute sermon in the middle.
5. A Small Parish
Finally, I watched the Facebook of a small church with limited resources. The rector has small children and thus may be more reluctant than some to head into the community; instead of being broadcast from the normal (shared) church, it came from his home altar.
Times of Great Mortality
Two of the parishes use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. During their service, both read the Anglican prayer most relevant for these trying times:
In Time of Great Sickness and MortalityO MOST mighty and merciful God, in this time of grievous sickness, we flee unto thee for succour. Deliver us, we beseech thee, from our peril; give strength and skill to all those who minister to the sick; prosper the means made use of for their cure; and grant that, perceiving how frail and uncertain our life is, we may apply our hearts unto that heavenly wisdom which leadeth to eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
This prayer — unique to the American church — is found in every Book of Common Prayer from 1789 to 1928. However, it was unexplicably omitted from the 1979 prayer book, and the ACNA’s 2019 revision of that prayer book.
Effective Online Singing
My major research (and practice) interest is in encouraging congregational singing, both because people learn more by singing (“He who sings, prays twice”) and because Anglican worship and liturgy are inherently participatory.
There are the questions of mechanics. A booklet (with tunes) is always best, but in one case the booklet did not match what those in the service were singing. Church #2 didn’t have a booklet, but instead called out the hymn number at the last minute — although a familiar hymn, I’m not sure how many parishioners own that hymnal.
Those that included music provided appropriate support for singing along. We’ve found in past (virtual) said liturgy that those at home can’t have their mikes on — e.g. for a creed or psalm — because there’s too much of a time lag to synchronize. Even so, there’s a need to encourage participation, so those at home feel like we are singing together. It definitely worked best when the broadcast service allowed us to hear everyone singing, rather than just the choir (#1) or just the praise leader (#3). That requires a conscious effort at setting up the mikes and mixing them.
It really wouldn’t have felt participatory if I’d been here alone: fortunately, my daughter sang soprano (and sometimes alto) as I tried to sight-read the bass. We both felt more empowered to take risks than if others had been around to hear us; I also got to cheat and sing some of the choir-only parts that I knew.
The choir (#1) did two things that were seemed to work well. First, the descant on one hymn was particularly effective: since the choir (music director) choir likes to do descants, this seemed “normal” — but also the descant cut through the mediocre sound reproduction of my TV. Similarly, the a capella choir (properly miked) on one verse really allowed us to hear the four parts clearly.
Implications for the Future
Live streaming virtual worship is here to stay. Certainly it will continue as a substitute for those who can’t come to church — shut-ins, travelers, or those on shift work. It may also be a way to introduce a church to its mission field.
I doubt that for Anglican and other liturgical churches it will replace face to face worship (but I’ve been wrong before). The key to our worship is participation, and — absent a holographic projection of us worshipping together — virtual worship is a poor substitute in providing that sense of community and participation.
If, in the long run, churches rely more heavily on online worship, the mediocrity of the online experience will likely lead to declining engagement with the parish, its mission, a live lived by faith — and concomitant willingness to support the local parish.
Therefore, there is more that can be done to develop such a sense of engagement for virtual worship. Some of it is pure mechanics — a high resolution camera, zoomed in on the right location, and a dress rehearsal to understand how the service will appear to those viewing online.
The keys to singing are twofold. First, make the text and music available to those not sitting in the building. The second is picking up and mixing the sound so we hear the instruments, singing by the professionals, and also by the amateur clergy and laity present in the room. While we won’t have a full congregation in times of social distancing, under more normal times, the sounds of congregational singing in an online broadcast can really help the feeling of being there.
I doubt that for Anglican and other liturgical churches it will replace face to face worship (but I’ve been wrong before). The key to our worship is participation, and — absent a holographic projection of us worshipping together — virtual worship is a poor substitute in providing that sense of community and participation.
If, in the long run, churches rely more heavily on online worship, the mediocrity of the online experience will likely lead to declining engagement with the parish, its mission, a live lived by faith — and concomitant willingness to support the local parish.
Therefore, there is more that can be done to develop such a sense of engagement for virtual worship. Some of it is pure mechanics — a high resolution camera, zoomed in on the right location, and a dress rehearsal to understand how the service will appear to those viewing online.
The keys to singing are twofold. First, make the text and music available to those not sitting in the building. The second is picking up and mixing the sound so we hear the instruments, singing by the professionals, and also by the amateur clergy and laity present in the room. While we won’t have a full congregation in times of social distancing, under more normal times, the sounds of congregational singing in an online broadcast can really help the feeling of being there.
There are other nuances and implications for encouraging singing and participation with online services that require further study and consideration. There’s probably a dissertation in here somewhere.
