Looking at a Baptist Ministers' FB group of which I'm a part, I've been surprised at the number of churches which are not going to reopen any time soon. Of course a lot of that will, rightly, be down to the issues mentioned by EM. But I do wonder if those churches which have a greater focus on the Eucharist than we do feel a greater "urge" to reopen? Indeed, another blog I read is heavily critical of an English Vicar who isn't planning to open immediately and brands him as "selfish" for "wanting to" continue celebrating Eucharist remotely from home.
72 hours shouldn't be a problem for any church that is only opening once a week. We are taking the plunge this weekend (after two Friday mornings of opening for private prayer). We are similar I guess to BF's church in that we are a small congregation in a large building, and easy to manage one route in, one route out.
I do wonder if those churches which have a greater focus on the Eucharist than we do feel a greater "urge" to reopen?
From where I'm sitting that's definitiely part of the push from the Catholic church to reopen ahead of anybody else, although it's not the only reason.
More generally, I'm all for caution but I'm concerned that any church not planning to reopen "until this is all over" is not going to reopen full stop.
Absolutely; but is anyone actually going that far? I do know of some churches in my denomination which are saying, "September at the earliest" which, in the absence of a second wave, seems to be over-cautious unless there are very good reasons for it, such as a Pastor who has to shield, or because they meet in a hired hall so aren't in charge of their own destiny.
Absolutely; but is anyone actually going that far? I do know of some churches in my denomination which are saying, "September at the earliest"
Certainly where I live, I'm far more confident about the wisdom of meeting in person now than about what the situation will be in September, hence my comment.
I think far too many people are behaving as if Covid-19 was something put on by governments to while away a few months before the summer holidays, after which life can get back to normal. I admire their optimism, but right now, I can't see any actual rationale for this mindset at all.
One of the advantages of being aboard the Ship is the opportunity to hear, and learn from, the experiences of people from different Christian traditions and backgrounds.
As @angloid says, Our Place may have an advantage over other churches in having a small congregation in a large building. If it were the other way around, as in @ExclamationMark's church, we would be facing the same set of difficulties, which I fully appreciate.
Of our three immediate C of E neighbours, two are re-opening this Sunday (large buildings with small MOTR congregations), but the third (again, a large building, with a charismatic-evo congregation of about 200 on Sundays) is continuing 'online' for the time being.
AFAICS, FatherInCharge and the Churchwardens are doing everything they can to make Our Place as safe as possible, and I haven't heard of any problems arising from the two Sundays on which the Church has been open for silent prayer.
Of course, as @Eutychus implies, the situation in September may be very different - we may be back to complete lockdown/closure - but it is true, I think, that for people from a Sacramental tradition, the 'Eucharistic fast' has gone on long enough...
BTW, the few service books that might be needed for use at the Thursday Mass (in a side chapel) are being kept rigidly separate from those that might be used on Sundays. They are plain paper booklets, and therefore porous, but FinC is taking no chances.
the third (again, a large building, with a charismatic-evo congregation of about 200 on Sundays) is continuing 'online' for the time being.
Again from my perspective and sources, while this looks eminently sensible, I think it will either result in the church in question evaporating as people drift to world-beating online church productions, or (perhaps more likely) to people from the church meeting in real life in smaller, but still potentially contagious, real-life groups where health measures are very likely not to be applied. I know at least one church actively encouraging this practice.
It might keep the leaders technically in the clear, but I'm not sure about the pastoral wisdom or ethics of such an approach.
We are planning to reopen on Sunday, without hymns or refreshments and have at least one more Mass in the week. The parish where we live, and the other parish in the St Quacks area, are still online, but they are much bigger and the other end of the Anglican spectrum.
We use specific booklets for each service, so don't have to worry about quarantining them.
I know that Fr Quack doesn't want children back for two or three weeks whilst everything beds in. Given that over half of them, including the Dragonlets are 5 and under, that is quite sensible.
I hadn't thought of that. Certainly here in Wales such gatherings would still be illegal unless they only consisted of members of two households that have formed a "social bubble".
As a general point, I would have thought that, if people decided "off their own bat" that they wanted to meet for worship and prayer, the church leadership could not be held responsible (although I'm not sure what this situation would be if they got to hear about it and didn't say anything). However, church leaders who actively encouraged such a practice might be culpable even if no-one gets ill ... I don't know how the law would stand.
We have no organist well enough to play at present so, barring recorded music, a service without singing is going to be very dour indeed, not to mention that a hymn sandwich without the hymns doesn't have a lot left to shape it. I wonder if I can get away with standing behind the last set of chairs facing the back wall and singing from there? Might be better than nothing.
the third (again, a large building, with a charismatic-evo congregation of about 200 on Sundays) is continuing 'online' for the time being.
Again from my perspective and sources, while this looks eminently sensible, I think it will either result in the church in question evaporating as people drift to world-beating online church productions, or (perhaps more likely) to people from the church meeting in real life in smaller, but still potentially contagious, real-life groups where health measures are very likely not to be applied. I know at least one church actively encouraging this practice.
It might keep the leaders technically in the clear, but I'm not sure about the pastoral wisdom or ethics of such an approach.
Point taken. It may well be that the church will re-open for worship in the next few weeks, but there's no hint of that AFAICS on their website (which, in all fairness, they are very good at keeping up-to-date).
As a general point, I would have thought that, if people decided "off their own bat" that they wanted to meet for worship and prayer, the church leadership could not be held responsible (although I'm not sure what this situation would be if they got to hear about it and didn't say anything). However, church leaders who actively encouraged such a practice might be culpable even if no-one gets ill ... I don't know how the law would stand.
Our leadership thought (belatedly) about it when we got an announcement on the church email list that one group within the church was organising a barbecue at someone's house. It having been announced in that manner definitely made it our responsibility.
Either way, if it becomes clear that the gathering is a de facto church gathering I should think there's some liability involved. Over and above that, I think there are pastoral responsibilities involved.
What people go off and do themselves is their affair, but churches meeting within the limitations set by law and after due reflection on how best to implement it is sensible, a good way of leading by example and educating, and evidence that a good-faith effort to comply with the law has been made by church leadership rather than shirking responsibilities.
In this context, leadership isn't about taking zero risks. There is no such thing. It's about taking measured and informed risks. We're coming up on our fifth Sunday and I like to think we've got it about right (although we are lucky to have a big building compared to our attendance levels).
We have no organist well enough to play at present so, barring recorded music, a service without singing is going to be very dour indeed, not to mention that a hymn sandwich without the hymns doesn't have a lot left to shape it. I wonder if I can get away with standing behind the last set of chairs facing the back wall and singing from there? Might be better than nothing.
Have there been actual orders about singing in the UK? We haven't had any such prohibitions, but we do have a requirement to wear masks. Our health team deemed singing with masks on acceptable.
Yes, there have. I quote from the Government document: "Activities such as singing, chanting, shouting and/or playing of instruments that are blown into should be specifically avoided in worship or devotions and in rehearsals. This is because there is a possible additional risk of infection in environments where individuals are singing or chanting as a group, and this applies even if social distancing is being observed or face coverings are used. Where essential to an act of worship, one individual only should be permitted to sing or chant, and the use of plexi-glass screens should be considered to protect worshippers from them, as this will further prevent transmission and the screen can be easily cleaned". I think that murmuring, muttering or humming would be OK though!
The Church of Scotland has said no singing when we do go back, which is at earliest July 23rd.
There is a 45 page booklet to be worked through about all the regulations (remove pew cushions, 2metre social distancing, no singing, and all the complicated hygiene and ordering of entering and leaving the building). There are also two checklists which presbyteries have to receive, completed, from each congregation before they can re-open, even for private prayer. It is really daunting, especially for smaller churches, with smaller pools of people who can get it all worked out. Most of my presbytery are deferring unlocking until Scottish stage 4, and so are many others. I know of one Baptist church in Edinburgh which has said not before the end of the year.
@Baptist Trainfan Wow. And I thought our restrictions were skewed anti-religion. Meanwhile pubs can open? What's the scientific basis (e.g. cases of infection where people have been singing with masks)?
Looking at a Baptist Ministers' FB group of which I'm a part, I've been surprised at the number of churches which are not going to reopen any time soon. Of course a lot of that will, rightly, be down to the issues mentioned by EM. But I do wonder if those churches which have a greater focus on the Eucharist than we do feel a greater "urge" to reopen? Indeed, another blog I read is heavily critical of an English Vicar who isn't planning to open immediately and brands him as "selfish" for "wanting to" continue celebrating Eucharist remotely from home.
A lot of churches here - including our own - is the same. Largeish numbers 200+, pews not chairs (not flexible) major concerns on safety plus significant pastoral concerns over balloting and/or ticketing (knowing there's a lot of anxiety and concern out there) means we carry on, as is.
I hadn't thought of that. Certainly here in Wales such gatherings would still be illegal unless they only consisted of members of two households that have formed a "social bubble".
As a general point, I would have thought that, if people decided "off their own bat" that they wanted to meet for worship and prayer, the church leadership could not be held responsible (although I'm not sure what this situation would be if they got to hear about it and didn't say anything). However, church leaders who actively encouraged such a practice might be culpable even if no-one gets ill ... I don't know how the law would stand.
It would depend if they used the church buildings. If they did the leaders/trustees are instantly liable as soon as they set foot on church grounds (not when they enter the building).
Indeed so, but I was thinking of people getting together "in the comfort of their own homes".
FWIW, in a Baptist Ministers' FB page I follow, at present the statistics are as follows (this is not a scientific sample of course):
Churches planning to hold services in their building in July: 7
Churches definitely not holding services in July: 79
Churches who haven't yet decided: 28
Churches in Scotland and Wales who have not been given any dates: 7
There are also one or two churches who don't have their own buildings.
To open would mean ballots and/or tickets for places - the pastoral implications of that are significant. It seems too inclusive/exclusive to me. Plus those who are not IT savvy are most likely the ones who'd want to be in the most .... but then they are mostly 70+ or socially isolating for very good reasons. Also if we open and are full, I'd have to turn people away if they come without a "ticket" I have never turned anyone away ever, and never want to do so.
We're in a similar position. We'll be allowed to open the building, when we get our plans signed off by the diocese, but we'll be allowed about a third of our normal congregation at each service.
So our plan is to allocate tickets. Ticket request will be mostly online, but we'll phone the people who don't do online. We already know that some people are clamouring to come back, and some are planning on sticking with virtual church for quite a while. Our guess is that people who want to come will be able to come every other week. We'll have a shortened service (to reduce exposure) and no singing (ditto). We plan to leave a handful of spots open, in case we get drop-ins (we also don't want to turn anyone away).
Masks will be worn, and we'll have extra masks for anyone who comes without.
@Baptist Trainfan Wow. And I thought our restrictions were skewed anti-religion. Meanwhile pubs can open? What's the scientific basis (e.g. cases of infection where people have been singing with masks)?
I return to this. If this were the case in France I think the institutional churches would have had a claim up before the Council of State that the measures in place were disproportionate compared to similar venues and thus constituted an infringement of our constitutional religious freedoms. Is nobody apart from the lunatic fringe making noises like this in the UK?
Absolutely; but is anyone actually going that far? I do know of some churches in my denomination which are saying, "September at the earliest" which, in the absence of a second wave, seems to be over-cautious unless there are very good reasons for it, such as a Pastor who has to shield, or because they meet in a hired hall so aren't in charge of their own destiny.
I think there's good sense in not rushing things - giving the stupid element in the community a month or two to settle in to a new regime of openness, and seeing what happens to the number of local cases as a result of people going back to pubs etc.
We've now got a lot of our congregation attending zoom morning prayer - either by computer, or by phone - and we're distributing the sacrament for communion by extension at home, so our congregation has access to communal prayer, to the Word and the Sacraments. And we know that a lot of the things that we're missing now (music, for example, or hugging people) are things that we won't be able to do in person anyway. So waiting a month or so extra doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice ('cause physical church won't be much better than what we have now).
I return to this. If this were the case in France I think the institutional churches would have had a claim up before the Council of State that the measures in place were disproportionate compared to similar venues and thus constituted an infringement of our constitutional religious freedoms. Is nobody apart from the lunatic fringe making noises like this in the UK?
I'm not in the UK any more, but my opinion is that the people wanting to be inside pubs right now are the lunatics. The incidence of the virus isn't nearly low enough for me to want to share a confined airspace with strangers.
I'm not in the UK any more, but my opinion is that the people wanting to be inside pubs right now are the lunatics. The incidence of the virus isn't nearly low enough for me to want to share a confined airspace with strangers.
Quite so. But while there are differences between the two settings, I can't see singing with masks on being more dangerous than a pub environment (or a plane trip), and I smell discrimination.
@Baptist Trainfan Wow. And I thought our restrictions were skewed anti-religion. Meanwhile pubs can open? What's the scientific basis (e.g. cases of infection where people have been singing with masks)?
Pubs are under quite strict restrictions about numbers together and distancing, so I know some that aren't doing so yet (and a few real ale ones that are waiting a few days). For the hospitality trade though, opening again is more financially vital than for churches.
I don't know if there has been any research on how far droplets spread from behind a mask when singing, and I imagine people would be tempted to remove to them to increase clarity. I suspect that if the government could ban anything other than talking they would, but it is integral to the practice of some religious traditions.
There are at least two separate considerations here.
One is the pure health risk. Unless and until somebody shows me empirical evidence about droplet-spreading with masks on, I'm content to accept the guidelines we have over here, because they appear more or less consistent with the guidelines for everyone else*.
Another is the discrimination issue. Measures with respect to places of worship should be proportional to those for other activities. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the current UK practice looks disproportionately discriminatory to me.
That in itself creates another problem. If the church gets even further out of step with what is deemed acceptable elsewhere, it's not really performing its "in the world" function, even if doing so entails a level of risk.
Of course for business activities there is a tradeoff between health and economic interests, but for church activities there is a tradeoff too - not necessarily with economic interests, but with social and spiritual ones.
It's a bit like the old joke about the only perfect church being a cemetery.
*Anecdotal evidence from bars is that "the rules are strictly applied at 7pm, less so at 11pm..." Also, executives wearing suits are apparently immune to infection judging by their behaviour.
Some of the CofS measures, like the checklist and the pew cushions , are the CofS going the second mile or putting a hedge around the law, depending on your point of view.
Many of my colleagues don’t want to go back yet. They (we, me too) have been discovering ways of being creative with worship and reaching to parts of the population who would find a threshold challenging to cross (spiritually, psychologically or historically). I was pleased when the 2metre restriction wasn’t lifted today, as we would have had to get back to normal sooner, and I don’t want us to go back to the normal of a quietly, bravely dying church. I want us to learn from this experience to go forward. A wee bit longer out of the buildings might help us to get away from their fortress-inducing mentality.
This might be the CofS’ last and only hope for a future.
Shedding some of the buildings might well be a way forward, though I expect it's as difficult for the Kirk as it is for the C of E.
ISTM that many churches are facing new opportunities, as well as challenges. O how I wish we could adapt our great barn to accommodate proper WC/kitchen facilities, so that it could be thrown open for community use, and not just for services!
The opportunities are presenting themselves - but the tools for meeting them are not available (yet...).
Whilst our place has been open for private prayer( for one hour a week), according to the video on our website, it looks most uninviting, with so many areas taped off by red and white tape, one way system clearly enforced, no loos, children’s area cleared away etc., all in accordance with Cof E protocols.
We are not rushing to restart Sunday worship, not least because the vicar is going to be on leave for two weeks this month. The online services will stop whilst he is away too.
Very depressing.
To open would mean ballots and/or tickets for places - the pastoral implications of that are significant. It seems too inclusive/exclusive to me. Plus those who are not IT savvy are most likely the ones who'd want to be in the most .... but then they are mostly 70+ or socially isolating for very good reasons. Also if we open and are full, I'd have to turn people away if they come without a "ticket" I have never turned anyone away ever, and never want to do so.
We're in a similar position. We'll be allowed to open the building, when we get our plans signed off by the diocese, but we'll be allowed about a third of our normal congregation at each service.
So our plan is to allocate tickets. Ticket request will be mostly online, but we'll phone the people who don't do online. We already know that some people are clamouring to come back, and some are planning on sticking with virtual church for quite a while. Our guess is that people who want to come will be able to come every other week. We'll have a shortened service (to reduce exposure) and no singing (ditto). We plan to leave a handful of spots open, in case we get drop-ins (we also don't want to turn anyone away).
Masks will be worn, and we'll have extra masks for anyone who comes without.
I can see where you are coming from but how will you allocate tickets/
Pastorally I don't feel I have that power to make those kind of distinctions knowing that someone who misses out could be the person most in need. I'm exercising partiality which I'm explicitly warned against.
Very interesting - and moving. Do you have any ideas of a way forward?
The short answer is no. The waffly answer is that we only make the way by walking it one step at a time - but the waffle might turn out to be the best answer I have just now.
@ExclamationMark Several churches here have gone for online registration/booking. This seems to work out for churches with membership disciplined enough a) to register b) to turn up if they have registered. Not a hope in our place!
Nor at Our Place (not that there so many of us that tickets would be needed)!
I do share @Puzzler's fear that the Church will look rather uninviting, with all the tape, notices, restrictions etc. in place, but I am hoping that the warmth of the welcome will make up for this!
The grass has been cut, and today I hope to tidy up the flower-bed by the main door, so that at least the outside looks nice and neat.
We can but try. We're all on a very steep, and unprecedented, learning curve...
I am disappointed that our PCC has not been invited to discuss what sort of services might be held when we reopen. The family services much favoured by our Vicar will hardly be attractive with no loos and no children’s corner, no singing, no hands-on activities. Nor will his informal midweek Communion with seats in a close circle, passing the elements to each other.
Our Relational Mission church (what new frontiers has been called for a couple of years now) is in a small warehouse and there are about 450 of us over the two morning services. In theory getting back in should be okay, it is a large building with few fixed features, there are two entrances (the week before lockdown we had a one way system with sanitation station) and we could make the toilets one person only. But the big problem would be the children, a quarter of our congregation is under the age of 18 and the majority of those are pre-schoolers or primary school and used to being able to freely charge around. Social distancing would be a nightmare with them and Sunday school imposdible with these numbers. I haven’t seen any plans to get us back yet (church newsletter is due today though).
We doing well online, with about 200 households logging in to the Zoom service, which is only advertised to members of the congregation (it’s good to see our missionaries abroad join us). We share virtual communion during the service. What our church has done extremely well is to have zoom chat in random break out rooms an hour before and after the service and regular podcasts in the week where church members discuss their lives; it has helped hold together a strong sense of community. We also have weekly online prayer, bible study and social groups - I don’t know what I would have done without our local group as I have hardly left the house except to exercise.
I think we might remain online for a little while yet and even when we return I expect an online presence to remain for those who cannot join us.
@ExclamationMark Several churches here have gone for online registration/booking. This seems to work out for churches with membership disciplined enough a) to register b) to turn up if they have registered. Not a hope in our place!
That's one approach. It's still partiality and some can't get online. It's just pushing the question another step further away
Our Relational Mission church (what new frontiers has been called for a couple of years now) is in a small warehouse and there are about 450 of us over the two morning services. In theory getting back in should be okay, it is a large building with few fixed features, there are two entrances (the week before lockdown we had a one way system with sanitation station) and we could make the toilets one person only. But the big problem would be the children, a quarter of our congregation is under the age of 18 and the majority of those are pre-schoolers or primary school and used to being able to freely charge around. Social distancing would be a nightmare with them and Sunday school imposdible with these numbers. I haven’t seen any plans to get us back yet (church newsletter is due today though).
We doing well online, with about 200 households logging in to the Zoom service, which is only advertised to members of the congregation (it’s good to see our missionaries abroad join us). We share virtual communion during the service. What our church has done extremely well is to have zoom chat in random break out rooms an hour before and after the service and regular podcasts in the week where church members discuss their lives; it has helped hold together a strong sense of community. We also have weekly online prayer, bible study and social groups - I don’t know what I would have done without our local group as I have hardly left the house except to exercise.
I think we might remain online for a little while yet and even when we return I expect an online presence to remain for those who cannot join us.
We're reopening for a few hours of 'private/individual' prayer in the middle of the week from next week (Scottish Episcopal). We have serious remedial work going on in another part of the building, too, so that complicates things. But otherwise we can manage the Bishops' Advisory Group regulations okay, I think. It gives us a bit of a picture about the restrictions for when services are resumed. But I get feedback that people are mainly not keen to return before 'safety' has been established nationwide! There are some exceptions; some folks who are angry and grumpy that 'their' church isn't available for their use and enjoyment.
We are permitted to use the church for funerals if we wish. But 'we' (read, 'I') do not wish! Apart from anything else, 'we' don't have the personnel to manage even a small crowd in church, given the restrictions. It'll be interesting to see how all this works out when services resume, when people need to be supervised much more closely, and the preparation and after-care of cleaning etc, is multiplied considerably.
I have warned the folks in our newsletters that any kind of use of the buildings will depend on having enough cleaners and stewards to make it possible.
The Advisory Group are apparently working on Phase 3 now.
Yes, we're going to have to be careful about the cleaning aspect, but AFAIK there are enough people to deal with this. The church will only be open for one service on Sunday, and one on Thursday. TBH, even that seems a little ambitious, but the Thursday service will be better for me - easier parking, for one thing!
The Hall is strictly out-of-bounds, as it is used every day during the week by a pre-school Nursery, and is being kept as safe as possible for them. They are operating under Ofsted etc. rules, I suppose.
We have some Baptisms lined up, as it were, and deferred from earlier in the year (one was originally programmed for the Easter Sunday morning Mass ). I'm not sure what FatherInCharge has in mind - I suspect he will want to wait and see how we get on with a 'new normal' service first...
That's one approach. It's still partiality and some can't get online. It's just pushing the question another step further away
Yes it is, and yes that's been a concern for me.
However, stepping back, I think we can do no more than a best effort undertaking. If we had a deaf person turn up, we would be struggling, because we have nobody who knows sign language. In practice, in any church there will be those we sadly decide we cannot do more to accommodate; all we can do is do our best to accommodate as many use cases as we can.
I've also found that some people I really didn't expect to turn up in person have done.
And at the end of the day, I'm confident that God can take care of those we can't serve. That's not an excuse, but at the end of the day our particular local church is not so indispensable.
I can see where you are coming from but how will you allocate tickets/
Pastorally I don't feel I have that power to make those kind of distinctions knowing that someone who misses out could be the person most in need. I'm exercising partiality which I'm explicitly warned against.
It's going to basically be a rota - don't know yet whether we'll do signups or just allocate families to days, but the idea is that nobody misses out - everybody who wants to come can come every other week (ish), and nobody gets to come all the time (except the priest, and the organist).
Our church (baptist/URC) are one of those that have said 'September at the earliest' for physical meetings, and looking at the onerous restrictions and the age profile of out church (mainly elderly) this seems eminently sensible. The letter we received to explain this is here https://www.christchurch-ipswich.org.uk/content/pages/documents/1593794380.pdf
It went fairly well - all the rules were obeyed, though I missed having Ims and Hincense...
One of our organists played prelude and postlude on the organ, and the other played the piano during the Offertory and Communion, so we did at least have some good music!
About two-thirds of our usual attendance turned up, which is an encouraging start. A few older folk were missing, along with three young families (we don't anticipate seeing them yet-a-while), but some of our 20/30-somethings were present, along with a couple of our regular students.
There did seem to be bit of milling about/chatting/catching up in the Church afterwards, but that was to be expected, given nearly 4 months' closure. AFAICS some reasonable social distancing was maintained, though.
Hopefully, more will return over the next few weeks, but I'm sure there are some who will not feel 'safe' for quite some time yet.
That's more or less how we did it (Liverpool C of E). Though we didn't wear masks in church (except the priest at communion). And communion was given at the usual point in the service: I wonder what was their rationale for administering at the end of mass? Expected numbers might have something to do with it; we could have managed distancing OK even with all our regular congregation present; several were absent for understandable reasons.
That's more or less how we did it (Liverpool C of E). Though we didn't wear masks in church (except the priest at communion). And communion was given at the usual point in the service: I wonder what was their rationale for administering at the end of mass? Expected numbers might have something to do with it; we could have managed distancing OK even with all our regular congregation present; several were absent for understandable reasons.
Its pretty much what we did too RC Wirral. But we had communion in the usual place and wore face masks except at communion which was in the hand only and no cup.
When I watch Mass at Lourdes ,Communion is occasionally given at the end of Mass, but I think that is because one of the TV stations broadcasting the service only allows a certain time for the broadcast.
This morning there were a few hundred at the Mass, but there were six priests distributing the Host. When you see the people from a distance it looks as if they are crowded together but when you see thing in close up there is sufficient social distancing.
Those who are in the sanctuary do not wear masks when reading but masks are put on for the distribution of Communion.
There is also singing but the participants not on the altar should wear masks all the time removing them only at Communion time.
No masks (except on just one person) at Our Place - they aren't mandatory, but FatherInCharge has emphasised that peeps must do as they see fit in this respect.
FInC sanitized his hands several times AFAICS - certainly before administering Communion.
BTW, before Communion, he held up one of the people's wafers, said 'The Body AND BLOOD of Christ' (to which we all dutifully muttered Amen), and then carefully dropped a host in silence into the cupped hands of each person as they came to the head of the queue - all standing, no kneeling at the altar rail.
It was most reverently done, and, if this is to be 'the new normal', I for one am quite happy with it.
Comments
More generally, I'm all for caution but I'm concerned that any church not planning to reopen "until this is all over" is not going to reopen full stop.
I think far too many people are behaving as if Covid-19 was something put on by governments to while away a few months before the summer holidays, after which life can get back to normal. I admire their optimism, but right now, I can't see any actual rationale for this mindset at all.
As @angloid says, Our Place may have an advantage over other churches in having a small congregation in a large building. If it were the other way around, as in @ExclamationMark's church, we would be facing the same set of difficulties, which I fully appreciate.
Of our three immediate C of E neighbours, two are re-opening this Sunday (large buildings with small MOTR congregations), but the third (again, a large building, with a charismatic-evo congregation of about 200 on Sundays) is continuing 'online' for the time being.
AFAICS, FatherInCharge and the Churchwardens are doing everything they can to make Our Place as safe as possible, and I haven't heard of any problems arising from the two Sundays on which the Church has been open for silent prayer.
Of course, as @Eutychus implies, the situation in September may be very different - we may be back to complete lockdown/closure - but it is true, I think, that for people from a Sacramental tradition, the 'Eucharistic fast' has gone on long enough...
BTW, the few service books that might be needed for use at the Thursday Mass (in a side chapel) are being kept rigidly separate from those that might be used on Sundays. They are plain paper booklets, and therefore porous, but FinC is taking no chances.
It might keep the leaders technically in the clear, but I'm not sure about the pastoral wisdom or ethics of such an approach.
We use specific booklets for each service, so don't have to worry about quarantining them.
I know that Fr Quack doesn't want children back for two or three weeks whilst everything beds in. Given that over half of them, including the Dragonlets are 5 and under, that is quite sensible.
As a general point, I would have thought that, if people decided "off their own bat" that they wanted to meet for worship and prayer, the church leadership could not be held responsible (although I'm not sure what this situation would be if they got to hear about it and didn't say anything). However, church leaders who actively encouraged such a practice might be culpable even if no-one gets ill ... I don't know how the law would stand.
Point taken. It may well be that the church will re-open for worship in the next few weeks, but there's no hint of that AFAICS on their website (which, in all fairness, they are very good at keeping up-to-date).
Either way, if it becomes clear that the gathering is a de facto church gathering I should think there's some liability involved. Over and above that, I think there are pastoral responsibilities involved.
What people go off and do themselves is their affair, but churches meeting within the limitations set by law and after due reflection on how best to implement it is sensible, a good way of leading by example and educating, and evidence that a good-faith effort to comply with the law has been made by church leadership rather than shirking responsibilities.
In this context, leadership isn't about taking zero risks. There is no such thing. It's about taking measured and informed risks. We're coming up on our fifth Sunday and I like to think we've got it about right (although we are lucky to have a big building compared to our attendance levels).
Have there been actual orders about singing in the UK? We haven't had any such prohibitions, but we do have a requirement to wear masks. Our health team deemed singing with masks on acceptable.
There is a 45 page booklet to be worked through about all the regulations (remove pew cushions, 2metre social distancing, no singing, and all the complicated hygiene and ordering of entering and leaving the building). There are also two checklists which presbyteries have to receive, completed, from each congregation before they can re-open, even for private prayer. It is really daunting, especially for smaller churches, with smaller pools of people who can get it all worked out. Most of my presbytery are deferring unlocking until Scottish stage 4, and so are many others. I know of one Baptist church in Edinburgh which has said not before the end of the year.
Personally, I'd prefer to wait until ALL are allowed to sing...
A lot of churches here - including our own - is the same. Largeish numbers 200+, pews not chairs (not flexible) major concerns on safety plus significant pastoral concerns over balloting and/or ticketing (knowing there's a lot of anxiety and concern out there) means we carry on, as is.
It would depend if they used the church buildings. If they did the leaders/trustees are instantly liable as soon as they set foot on church grounds (not when they enter the building).
FWIW, in a Baptist Ministers' FB page I follow, at present the statistics are as follows (this is not a scientific sample of course):
Churches planning to hold services in their building in July: 7
Churches definitely not holding services in July: 79
Churches who haven't yet decided: 28
Churches in Scotland and Wales who have not been given any dates: 7
There are also one or two churches who don't have their own buildings.
We're in a similar position. We'll be allowed to open the building, when we get our plans signed off by the diocese, but we'll be allowed about a third of our normal congregation at each service.
So our plan is to allocate tickets. Ticket request will be mostly online, but we'll phone the people who don't do online. We already know that some people are clamouring to come back, and some are planning on sticking with virtual church for quite a while. Our guess is that people who want to come will be able to come every other week. We'll have a shortened service (to reduce exposure) and no singing (ditto). We plan to leave a handful of spots open, in case we get drop-ins (we also don't want to turn anyone away).
Masks will be worn, and we'll have extra masks for anyone who comes without.
I return to this. If this were the case in France I think the institutional churches would have had a claim up before the Council of State that the measures in place were disproportionate compared to similar venues and thus constituted an infringement of our constitutional religious freedoms. Is nobody apart from the lunatic fringe making noises like this in the UK?
I think there's good sense in not rushing things - giving the stupid element in the community a month or two to settle in to a new regime of openness, and seeing what happens to the number of local cases as a result of people going back to pubs etc.
We've now got a lot of our congregation attending zoom morning prayer - either by computer, or by phone - and we're distributing the sacrament for communion by extension at home, so our congregation has access to communal prayer, to the Word and the Sacraments. And we know that a lot of the things that we're missing now (music, for example, or hugging people) are things that we won't be able to do in person anyway. So waiting a month or so extra doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice ('cause physical church won't be much better than what we have now).
I'm not in the UK any more, but my opinion is that the people wanting to be inside pubs right now are the lunatics. The incidence of the virus isn't nearly low enough for me to want to share a confined airspace with strangers.
I think there has been/will be a legal challenge to the initial closure of places of worship.
Pubs are under quite strict restrictions about numbers together and distancing, so I know some that aren't doing so yet (and a few real ale ones that are waiting a few days). For the hospitality trade though, opening again is more financially vital than for churches.
I don't know if there has been any research on how far droplets spread from behind a mask when singing, and I imagine people would be tempted to remove to them to increase clarity. I suspect that if the government could ban anything other than talking they would, but it is integral to the practice of some religious traditions.
One is the pure health risk. Unless and until somebody shows me empirical evidence about droplet-spreading with masks on, I'm content to accept the guidelines we have over here, because they appear more or less consistent with the guidelines for everyone else*.
Another is the discrimination issue. Measures with respect to places of worship should be proportional to those for other activities. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the current UK practice looks disproportionately discriminatory to me.
That in itself creates another problem. If the church gets even further out of step with what is deemed acceptable elsewhere, it's not really performing its "in the world" function, even if doing so entails a level of risk.
Of course for business activities there is a tradeoff between health and economic interests, but for church activities there is a tradeoff too - not necessarily with economic interests, but with social and spiritual ones.
It's a bit like the old joke about the only perfect church being a cemetery.
*Anecdotal evidence from bars is that "the rules are strictly applied at 7pm, less so at 11pm..." Also, executives wearing suits are apparently immune to infection judging by their behaviour.
Many of my colleagues don’t want to go back yet. They (we, me too) have been discovering ways of being creative with worship and reaching to parts of the population who would find a threshold challenging to cross (spiritually, psychologically or historically). I was pleased when the 2metre restriction wasn’t lifted today, as we would have had to get back to normal sooner, and I don’t want us to go back to the normal of a quietly, bravely dying church. I want us to learn from this experience to go forward. A wee bit longer out of the buildings might help us to get away from their fortress-inducing mentality.
This might be the CofS’ last and only hope for a future.
ISTM that many churches are facing new opportunities, as well as challenges. O how I wish we could adapt our great barn to accommodate proper WC/kitchen facilities, so that it could be thrown open for community use, and not just for services!
The opportunities are presenting themselves - but the tools for meeting them are not available (yet...).
We are not rushing to restart Sunday worship, not least because the vicar is going to be on leave for two weeks this month. The online services will stop whilst he is away too.
Very depressing.
Pastorally I don't feel I have that power to make those kind of distinctions knowing that someone who misses out could be the person most in need. I'm exercising partiality which I'm explicitly warned against.
The short answer is no. The waffly answer is that we only make the way by walking it one step at a time - but the waffle might turn out to be the best answer I have just now.
I do share @Puzzler's fear that the Church will look rather uninviting, with all the tape, notices, restrictions etc. in place, but I am hoping that the warmth of the welcome will make up for this!
The grass has been cut, and today I hope to tidy up the flower-bed by the main door, so that at least the outside looks nice and neat.
We can but try. We're all on a very steep, and unprecedented, learning curve...
We doing well online, with about 200 households logging in to the Zoom service, which is only advertised to members of the congregation (it’s good to see our missionaries abroad join us). We share virtual communion during the service. What our church has done extremely well is to have zoom chat in random break out rooms an hour before and after the service and regular podcasts in the week where church members discuss their lives; it has helped hold together a strong sense of community. We also have weekly online prayer, bible study and social groups - I don’t know what I would have done without our local group as I have hardly left the house except to exercise.
I think we might remain online for a little while yet and even when we return I expect an online presence to remain for those who cannot join us.
That's one approach. It's still partiality and some can't get online. It's just pushing the question another step further away
That's exactly what we are doing
We are permitted to use the church for funerals if we wish. But 'we' (read, 'I') do not wish! Apart from anything else, 'we' don't have the personnel to manage even a small crowd in church, given the restrictions. It'll be interesting to see how all this works out when services resume, when people need to be supervised much more closely, and the preparation and after-care of cleaning etc, is multiplied considerably.
I have warned the folks in our newsletters that any kind of use of the buildings will depend on having enough cleaners and stewards to make it possible.
The Advisory Group are apparently working on Phase 3 now.
The Hall is strictly out-of-bounds, as it is used every day during the week by a pre-school Nursery, and is being kept as safe as possible for them. They are operating under Ofsted etc. rules, I suppose.
We have some Baptisms lined up, as it were, and deferred from earlier in the year (one was originally programmed for the Easter Sunday morning Mass
However, stepping back, I think we can do no more than a best effort undertaking. If we had a deaf person turn up, we would be struggling, because we have nobody who knows sign language. In practice, in any church there will be those we sadly decide we cannot do more to accommodate; all we can do is do our best to accommodate as many use cases as we can.
I've also found that some people I really didn't expect to turn up in person have done.
And at the end of the day, I'm confident that God can take care of those we can't serve. That's not an excuse, but at the end of the day our particular local church is not so indispensable.
It's going to basically be a rota - don't know yet whether we'll do signups or just allocate families to days, but the idea is that nobody misses out - everybody who wants to come can come every other week (ish), and nobody gets to come all the time (except the priest, and the organist).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5nArwoMZvlI&feature=share
But this week, for the first time, we were invited to share in Holy Communion at home using a beautiful liturgy 'Scattered yet gathered' from Bloomsbury Baptist Church http://baptistbookworm.blogspot.com/2020/03/scattered-yet-gathered.html
It went fairly well - all the rules were obeyed, though I missed having Ims and Hincense...
One of our organists played prelude and postlude on the organ, and the other played the piano during the Offertory and Communion, so we did at least have some good music!
About two-thirds of our usual attendance turned up, which is an encouraging start. A few older folk were missing, along with three young families (we don't anticipate seeing them yet-a-while), but some of our 20/30-somethings were present, along with a couple of our regular students.
There did seem to be bit of milling about/chatting/catching up in the Church afterwards, but that was to be expected, given nearly 4 months' closure. AFAICS some reasonable social distancing was maintained, though.
Hopefully, more will return over the next few weeks, but I'm sure there are some who will not feel 'safe' for quite some time yet.
Its pretty much what we did too RC Wirral. But we had communion in the usual place and wore face masks except at communion which was in the hand only and no cup.
This morning there were a few hundred at the Mass, but there were six priests distributing the Host. When you see the people from a distance it looks as if they are crowded together but when you see thing in close up there is sufficient social distancing.
Those who are in the sanctuary do not wear masks when reading but masks are put on for the distribution of Communion.
There is also singing but the participants not on the altar should wear masks all the time removing them only at Communion time.
FInC sanitized his hands several times AFAICS - certainly before administering Communion.
BTW, before Communion, he held up one of the people's wafers, said 'The Body AND BLOOD of Christ' (to which we all dutifully muttered Amen), and then carefully dropped a host in silence into the cupped hands of each person as they came to the head of the queue - all standing, no kneeling at the altar rail.
It was most reverently done, and, if this is to be 'the new normal', I for one am quite happy with it.