Have you considered a discord server system for your church, my D&D group is going digital and I’ve been quite impressed with the functionality. I’ve used it before but not for a while - and not used audio with it before.
Church wise the ability to set up different channels, and different roles with differing access might be helpful as an organisational thing.
I fear I must be a heretic. I'm a (or try to be) "don't miss a Sunday sorta guy," but under lockdown I can't be bothered streaming a liturgy. I'm chillaxed with God in the garden, enjoying the solitude, stuttering prayers. Perhaps I'm a wanton backslider, of great evil, a person not fit for the Reign of God (aren't we all?) because, as I was told 40 years ago as a new Christian, one who puts (they would have said "his" in those days) their hands to the plough and looks back is not fit ... etc?
I'll be back when Mass re-opens but for now ...
Though paradoxically I am writing and blogging sermons for the net, just as a discipline, and in the hope they are helpful for others who may want an external word, something from beyond their home front that tickles the thoughts of God.
My personal take is that in my capacity as a leader of a congregation, I have a responsibility to provide some leadership to that congregation. In times of crisis people look to their leaders - national and spiritual - for reassurance and guidance, and expect them to provide some.
Some people will be fine without this, and I'm convinced the Holy Spirit can look after believers without my help, nevertheless if one is involved in leading a congregation and believes that congregation has some role in the purposes of God, I think that leadership role requires making some sort of input.
For the same reason - the conviction that we as a congregation have something to do and say in the wider body of Christ - I'd also like the church I help lead to be more or less in one piece and if possible spiritually stronger after all this than before. If we as a church do nothing, I'm concerned that people will swallow all kinds of crap from the Internet and lose all sense of belonging to a spiritual community.
There's enough big churches (of every stripe), to do the "songs of praise" technically better both in terms of actual content and web skills/resources. The trick there is to find the 'right' one(s) for your congregation.
What the local church needs, that it can't share, is to show it is still there, and to keep the community together.
If you have the capability then even if badly done or minimal then an online service does the outward part of that.
The trickier part is getting a space for input.
Our village church had a telephone conference call morning service at 10am, aimed particularly at the people who do not use computers, but several more of us joined in. We all had the opportunity to greet the others before beginning worship. There were about 30 connections
There will be a Facebook version at noon, which should reach others.
I did the low tech. approach. I sent out a sermon in .pdf format, together with instructions on what prayers and reading might appropriately go with it.
This week I put my audio service not only on my churches websites but on the village events FB page. Where people seemed glad to see it. So I will keep doing this. We may even rise to some visual bits for Easter!
Well done @Cathscats! Do show us the visual bits for Easter, if you can.
Now that Our Place is closed, we seem to be getting around to quite a few Other Places. I went to Scotland, to join the Bishop of Edinburgh, Madam Sacristan went to Walsingham, a lady of our congregation went to St James, Piccadilly, London, and several others joined the Redemptorists (Fr McBride) for Mass (RC, but who's counting...? ).
Now that Our Place is closed, we seem to be getting around to quite a few Other Places. I went to Scotland, to join the Bishop of Edinburgh, Madam Sacristan went to Walsingham, a lady of our congregation went to St James, Piccadilly, London, and several others joined the Redemptorists (Fr McBride) for Mass (RC, but who's counting...? ).
I visited a recording of a Low Mass from last week at All Saints', Margaret Street. I guess I didn't realize they use the Roman Missal. I didn't think they would, for some reason. It's probably odd that I find this practice (among Anglican parishes) fascinating. Maybe it's because it is completely not done here in the US.
I watched the Livestream from All Saints, Margaret Street myself today ... surprised how much of the responses I remembered after all these years. It's at noon (British time so may not suit your locality Oblatus ... but you can see it up on Youtube)
Regime change at ASMS then. When I used to go there midweek 20-mumble years ago it was ASB:A with the Roman Lectionary - a familiar brew as that was what had been the norm at college.
I hear reports that some churches are making their online experience a "pay before you pray" deal.
I have also heard raised the prospect of copyright infringement suits for churches streaming worship videos in such contexts without proper licensing.
My other takeaway from this weekend is that the fuller platforms are a temptation to transfer as much of the bricks-and-mortar church experience online; my intuition is that this is not the right strategy. I think the new medium and its limitations requires a much depeer rethink.
Having watched a variety of online worship, I find that a church's attempt to celebrate Mass - with just the priest, and probably someone behind the camera - in the church itself, at the main altar, just doesn't work for me.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
We’ve been exploring a combination of FB streaming and Zoom to maintain the public worship element (the FB stream is public), but with more personal interaction with church members. We used multiple break out rooms afterwards for different groups to interact with the ministers for their churches.
I want to thank Trudy, as a moderator, for pointing me to this thread, and for closing the one I started in Heaven. I looked around, but obviously overlooked, threads with this theme.
There are so many Covid-19 related threads that it's hardly surprising that confusion exists...pity the poor Hosts & Admins, trying to sort it all out!
Not to mention all the messages about how to celebrate Holy Week and Easter, currently pouring out of the Head Offices of various churches.
I'm beginning to feel a bit pressurised, though many of the suggestions and resources coming from our Diocese are imaginative and (possibly) helpful.
Having watched a variety of online worship, I find that a church's attempt to celebrate Mass - with just the priest, and probably someone behind the camera - in the church itself, at the main altar, just doesn't work for me.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
I would agree. Celebrating backs to the people just makes it worse IMHO.
Gonna say it again, I think Zoom is a bit shite and I’ve been much happier with Wire. It’s version with more features is also cheap.
There’s also a virtue in going for a less saturated platform, it maybe less likely to become overloaded.
On a related point, streaming to YouTube will be accessible to anyone with the internet - Facebook is potentially a little restricted. And you can embed a YouTube stream into your webpage - so people can navigate to it very easily.
On a related point, streaming to YouTube will be accessible to anyone with the internet - Facebook is potentially a little restricted. And you can embed a YouTube stream into your webpage - so people can navigate to it very easily.
YouTube is what we’re using. Our church has a YouTube channel, so all the streamed services, mid-week devotional and other “in the meantime” videos (as well as some older videos) can be found there. It’s working very well,
The Scottish Episcopal Church Sunday Eucharist is available on YouTube, and that platform is much more efficient (?) than Facebook. I hope the same will apply to their Holy Week services - I am rather enjoying returning to The Land Of My Fathers (well, Mother's Family, anyway...).
Having watched a variety of online worship, I find that a church's attempt to celebrate Mass - with just the priest, and probably someone behind the camera - in the church itself, at the main altar, just doesn't work for me.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
I would agree. Celebrating backs to the people just makes it worse IMHO.
One of the A-C parishes in our Diocese celebrates ad orientem as a matter of course (I think they even still use the English Missal!).
The vicar live-streams daily Mass from his private chapel, and does indeed face the altar for much of the liturgy. It doesn't too bad, IYSWIM, but I find the outdated language a bit odd...
The Scottish Episcopal Church Sunday Eucharist is available on YouTube, and that platform is much more efficient (?) than Facebook. I hope the same will apply to their Holy Week services - I am rather enjoying returning to The Land Of My Fathers (well, Mother's Family, anyway...).
The last frame that flashed up before the stream finished did seem to be about Maundy Thursday, but I blinked and missed most of it.
Having watched a variety of online worship, I find that a church's attempt to celebrate Mass - with just the priest, and probably someone behind the camera - in the church itself, at the main altar, just doesn't work for me.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
I would agree. Celebrating backs to the people just makes it worse IMHO.
It would be north end if I were recording a celebration of Communion in the side chapel here.
I know that many clergy are live-streaming services (especially the Eucharist) in order to support their congregations as much as possible. Maybe a few (present company hopefully excepted) are doing so self-indulgently. And many lay people (I know from our own church's FB an WhatsApp groups) genuinely appreciate this and are receiving great spiritual support.
But the temptation is to indulge in a lot of liturgical tourism, or to become over-pious because there is little else to do in this lockdown than listen to online meditations. I'm feeling more like Zappa in that I can't take very much religion just now.
What does keep me going is the daily office (fourfold right now because there are fewer distractions). Sometimes I will join with the monks of Mirfield in this, because it is reassuringly normal.
Slightly changing tack: many of the webcasts of worship focus on the priest's/leader's face for much of the time. That is OK at the beginning, because it's important for viewers to feel personally welcomed. But for the whole thing (including the prayers) it seems wrong and distracting. In church we never get a close-up of the minister's face but see them leading, preaching, praying in the context of the whole congregation. In the absence of a live congregation couldn't the camera focus on, say, a cross or an icon or a candle during the prayers? Maybe the actual text of the readings or simply an open bible?
Slightly changing tack: many of the webcasts of worship focus on the priest's/leader's face for much of the time. That is OK at the beginning, because it's important for viewers to feel personally welcomed. But for the whole thing (including the prayers) it seems wrong and distracting. In church we never get a close-up of the minister's face but see them leading, preaching, praying in the context of the whole congregation. In the absence of a live congregation couldn't the camera focus on, say, a cross or an icon or a candle during the prayers? Maybe the actual text of the readings or simply an open bible?
Ours have been doing that some. During the prayers, the camera moved between the minister (close-up and wider shot), the page of the bulletin where prayer concerns were listed and the church’s stained glass windows.
Of course, had I had my eyes closed, I wouldn’t have known that.
I'm beginning to feel a bit pressurised, though many of the suggestions and resources coming from our Diocese are imaginative and (possibly) helpful.
The next time someone whom I have mentioned (on the "Why are Diocesan Advisors Such Gits" thread) tells me that I need to do X I may just have to tell him what I think. Getting lots and lots of potentially useful ideas is not helpful, as I then have to sort the wheat from the dubious matter from the chaff. A few would be helpful to kick start one's own thinking, but the suggestion overload I am getting is just inducing paralysis.
The Scottish Episcopal Church Sunday Eucharist is available on YouTube, and that platform is much more efficient (?) than Facebook. I hope the same will apply to their Holy Week services - I am rather enjoying returning to The Land Of My Fathers (well, Mother's Family, anyway...).
Having watched a variety of online worship, I find that a church's attempt to celebrate Mass - with just the priest, and probably someone behind the camera - in the church itself, at the main altar, just doesn't work for me.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
I would agree. Celebrating backs to the people just makes it worse IMHO.
One of the A-C parishes in our Diocese celebrates ad orientem as a matter of course (I think they even still use the English Missal!).
The vicar live-streams daily Mass from his private chapel, and does indeed face the altar for much of the liturgy. It doesn't too bad, IYSWIM, but I find the outdated language a bit odd...
Now I know we Christians like to kid ourselves about all sorts of things ..... but it isn't really ad orientem in the vast majority of churches. It is best described as either facing the wall or backs to the people depending on your view on the etiquette involved with turning your back on the people you are supposed to be worshipping with.
The Taize community are live streaming from the back of a room in which all of the brothers are facing the front, where there are candles and/or icons. So we see their backs. It works for me.
The Scottish Episcopal Church Sunday Eucharist is available on YouTube, and that platform is much more efficient (?) than Facebook. I hope the same will apply to their Holy Week services - I am rather enjoying returning to The Land Of My Fathers (well, Mother's Family, anyway...).
Having watched a variety of online worship, I find that a church's attempt to celebrate Mass - with just the priest, and probably someone behind the camera - in the church itself, at the main altar, just doesn't work for me.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
I would agree. Celebrating backs to the people just makes it worse IMHO.
One of the A-C parishes in our Diocese celebrates ad orientem as a matter of course (I think they even still use the English Missal!).
The vicar live-streams daily Mass from his private chapel, and does indeed face the altar for much of the liturgy. It doesn't too bad, IYSWIM, but I find the outdated language a bit odd...
Now I know we Christians like to kid ourselves about all sorts of things ..... but it isn't really ad orientem in the vast majority of churches. It is best described as either facing the wall or backs to the people depending on your view on the etiquette involved with turning your back on the people you are supposed to be worshipping with.
Everyone except the folk in the back row have their backs to at least some of the people they're worshipping with. I grew up with ad populum but ad orientem is very common in the SEC and so long as the words are audible I don't mind either way.
Cutting off the heating, and thereby saving quite a wad of $$$ seems like a Very Good Idea, as long as the fabric of the church doesn't suffer as a result.
As far as live streaming is concerned, yes, I agree - do it well (or as well as you can).
The weather has been cooperating, so the temperature in the chancel has stayed at a steady 65 to 68F since the heat was cut off last week. The nave will be a little cooler, but not much - say 62 to 65F. Looking at the weather forecast, the next 10 days look benign too, so all is good. I think the fabric is going to be OK. Thank God for the early spring.
We are on the 10 or less rule here, so I am opening the church for prayer for a couple of hours each morning for private prayer. During that time I am reading Morning Prayer (and Ante-Communion, this week) in church, but I am not advertising the liturgy, though the members of the parish who are familiar with my routine know I am likely to be there reading Matins at that time of day.
Technically, we could have our normal weekday activities, if only the usual people came as we usually run 4 to 7 and they scatter themselves all over the nave even without Covid-19. On the other hand, I don't want to risk the bored or the curious pushing us over the mandated number, so everything remains cancelled. Three of us did the Palm liturgy on Sunday, and we will probably do Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter too. I am seeing if we can record our service, and then stream it later.
Count yourself fortunate @PDR We could have clergy in our church (but not laity) only if they are streaming, which we are not set up to do. In any case, we are locked out of our rented premises by our officious landlord.
Is this a first?
After a long interregnum the new Incumbent of a neighbouring benefice has been “ virtually licensed”.
Churchwardens and other legally necessary persons in virtual attendance.
Is this a first?
After a long interregnum the new Incumbent of a neighbouring benefice has been “ virtually licensed”.
Churchwardens and other legally necessary persons in virtual attendance.
Similar things are happening in the Church of Scotland.
Argh! For some reason my last post got stuck. (By the way we were on Zoom.)
Anyway our vicar lead the service of the Word with lay readers reading the OT and NT passages, the vicar read the Gospel of the last supper from John, and we responded to a timely Prayers of the People.
Instead of a homily, we were invited to share our thoughts and reflections. I shared that I had just learned that the ministry center I volunteer at has gotten the go-ahead from our city council to start building apartments on the mission property to house the poor, the elderly on fixed income, and many living on the edge. Thanks be to God! Others had prayers for keeping all aware of those in need and thanks for those still working to keep the world functioning. We ended with more Taize and a quiet prayer.
We are doing our best to keep worshiping and keep connecting.
Is this a first?
After a long interregnum the new Incumbent of a neighbouring benefice has been “ virtually licensed”.
Churchwardens and other legally necessary persons in virtual attendance.
Similar things are happening in the Church of Scotland.
Licensing is usually a paperwork exercise for us even in normal times. It is the induction/installation that will have to be delayed in the present circumstances. We also have two ordinations 'on ice' because of the Covid-19 restrictions, which is awkward to say the least. I am hoping that the restrictions ease enough to be able to ordain the men in question soon. They should have been done at the Lent Ember Days, but the paperwork got stalled in Standing Committee, then the Covid-19 restrictions bit. I am praying they can be ordained come the Trinity ordination.
We stopped doing licensing a long time ago. Just ordination and installation for us.
We get a number of transfers, and licensing is our opportunity to get rid of the folks who are not make the grade because they either
(a) have an active disciplinary somewhere (or should have!)
(b) got their theological education off the back of the fruit-loops box,
(c) persons ordained by the Old Catholics (multiple problems there), or
(d) have theological views that are not compatible with the doctrinal stance of the Church.
Of the options (b) is by far the most common the commonest problem being that they were ordained by a bishop with a fast set of hands twenty years after they spent a couple of years at 'Dispie Bible Skool' and have not learnt a damn any thing since about Anglicanism. Persons actually coming up within the denomination are actually fairly easy to deal with in that we are supervising them all the way through so we have a shrewd idea of what we are getting.
We deal with those sorts of things through the Committee on Ministry (in some places a Commission on Ministry*) and Presbytery actions on whether to accept the candidate and proceed with ordination and/or installation, as well as through educational requirements and the ordination exam.
* A committee recommends action to be taken by the Presbytery. A commission has full authority to act on behalf of the Presbytery and need only report its actions to the Presbytery.
AIUI, all ordinations in this Diocese are being transferred to the September Michaelmas slot, so no ordinations at Petertide this year.
I guess those due in June will be licensed in some way or other (to get them on the payroll at the right time, if nothing else), but quite what they'll be able to do in the way of lawful ministry is not clear - in any case, churches may well still be closed then (hopefully not, but...).
ordained by a bishop with a fast set of hands twenty years after they spent a couple of years at 'Dispie Bible Skool' and have not learnt a damn any thing since about Anglicanism
I can think of one diocese (but won't name it or even its country) where that's almost de riguer. It's probably not world shattering but I was bemused when one of its senior clerics announced on Facebook "Good Friday is not the end of the Easter Season, but it goes on until Easter Day." [where's the rolleyes emoji when I need it?]
@Nick Tamen - The trigger point for making the Diocesan/District Standing Committee (DSC) stir their stumps is when the bishop gets a request for a license. Then it should proceed upon broadly similar lines to your Committee on Ministry except that the recommendation goes to the bishop not the Presbytery. The custom in this diocese is that the Bishop can reject a candidate that has been approved by the DSC, but cannot accept one that has been rejected, but he may ask the DSC to look again.
@Zappa - we have one diocese that ordains far too many 'specials.'* These are usually candidates who have a BA/BS degree, are not in a position to follow the usual training programme, but have done some classes at a Dispie Bible School, so they get to read for orders. The results are mixed, and a couple of years ago the other dioceses said they were not going to accept any more 'specials' ordained in that diocese unless they subsequently obtained the appropriate qualification. The minimum is two years full-time postgraduate study - basically, the old L.Th., but it has a different name now. With glacial slowness, their standard is beginning to rise!
* - named for the old Canon that laid down the minimum required for ...those ordained to the Diaconate in Special Circumstances
There is an ability to be a 'special' in the URC but it is at the Request of Assembly(RA), usually employed in a situation where a congregation joins the URC and the current incumbent is not in a position to train by the usual routes (e.g. already over retirement age or Non-Stipendiary with heavy other commitments). Even so, my one experience of an RA minister was enough that the only circumstance I would immediately apply to be a candidate for the ministry is if the Church threatened to ordain me by RA.
Comments
Church wise the ability to set up different channels, and different roles with differing access might be helpful as an organisational thing.
I'll be back when Mass re-opens but for now ...
Though paradoxically I am writing and blogging sermons for the net, just as a discipline, and in the hope they are helpful for others who may want an external word, something from beyond their home front that tickles the thoughts of God.
My personal take is that in my capacity as a leader of a congregation, I have a responsibility to provide some leadership to that congregation. In times of crisis people look to their leaders - national and spiritual - for reassurance and guidance, and expect them to provide some.
Some people will be fine without this, and I'm convinced the Holy Spirit can look after believers without my help, nevertheless if one is involved in leading a congregation and believes that congregation has some role in the purposes of God, I think that leadership role requires making some sort of input.
For the same reason - the conviction that we as a congregation have something to do and say in the wider body of Christ - I'd also like the church I help lead to be more or less in one piece and if possible spiritually stronger after all this than before. If we as a church do nothing, I'm concerned that people will swallow all kinds of crap from the Internet and lose all sense of belonging to a spiritual community.
What the local church needs, that it can't share, is to show it is still there, and to keep the community together.
If you have the capability then even if badly done or minimal then an online service does the outward part of that.
The trickier part is getting a space for input.
There will be a Facebook version at noon, which should reach others.
Now that Our Place is closed, we seem to be getting around to quite a few Other Places. I went to Scotland, to join the Bishop of Edinburgh, Madam Sacristan went to Walsingham, a lady of our congregation went to St James, Piccadilly, London, and several others joined the Redemptorists (Fr McBride) for Mass (RC, but who's counting...?
I visited a recording of a Low Mass from last week at All Saints', Margaret Street. I guess I didn't realize they use the Roman Missal. I didn't think they would, for some reason. It's probably odd that I find this practice (among Anglican parishes) fascinating. Maybe it's because it is completely not done here in the US.
I have also heard raised the prospect of copyright infringement suits for churches streaming worship videos in such contexts without proper licensing.
My other takeaway from this weekend is that the fuller platforms are a temptation to transfer as much of the bricks-and-mortar church experience online; my intuition is that this is not the right strategy. I think the new medium and its limitations requires a much depeer rethink.
(It's not allowed in this Diocese, anyway!)
YMMV.
OTOH, the simple 'front room' or 'private chapel' Eucharist seems much more appropriate, though I can't quite explain why - perhaps because I'm at home, perforce, too...?
Not to mention all the messages about how to celebrate Holy Week and Easter, currently pouring out of the Head Offices of various churches.
I'm beginning to feel a bit pressurised, though many of the suggestions and resources coming from our Diocese are imaginative and (possibly) helpful.
I would agree. Celebrating backs to the people just makes it worse IMHO.
There’s also a virtue in going for a less saturated platform, it maybe less likely to become overloaded.
On a related point, streaming to YouTube will be accessible to anyone with the internet - Facebook is potentially a little restricted. And you can embed a YouTube stream into your webpage - so people can navigate to it very easily.
The Scottish Episcopal Church Sunday Eucharist is available on YouTube, and that platform is much more efficient (?) than Facebook. I hope the same will apply to their Holy Week services - I am rather enjoying returning to The Land Of My Fathers (well, Mother's Family, anyway...).
One of the A-C parishes in our Diocese celebrates ad orientem as a matter of course (I think they even still use the English Missal!).
The vicar live-streams daily Mass from his private chapel, and does indeed face the altar for much of the liturgy. It doesn't too bad, IYSWIM, but I find the outdated language a bit odd...
The last frame that flashed up before the stream finished did seem to be about Maundy Thursday, but I blinked and missed most of it.
...here we are:
scotland.anglican.org/broadcast-sunday-worship/
It would be north end if I were recording a celebration of Communion in the side chapel here.
But the temptation is to indulge in a lot of liturgical tourism, or to become over-pious because there is little else to do in this lockdown than listen to online meditations. I'm feeling more like Zappa in that I can't take very much religion just now.
What does keep me going is the daily office (fourfold right now because there are fewer distractions). Sometimes I will join with the monks of Mirfield in this, because it is reassuringly normal.
Slightly changing tack: many of the webcasts of worship focus on the priest's/leader's face for much of the time. That is OK at the beginning, because it's important for viewers to feel personally welcomed. But for the whole thing (including the prayers) it seems wrong and distracting. In church we never get a close-up of the minister's face but see them leading, preaching, praying in the context of the whole congregation. In the absence of a live congregation couldn't the camera focus on, say, a cross or an icon or a candle during the prayers? Maybe the actual text of the readings or simply an open bible?
Of course, had I had my eyes closed, I wouldn’t have known that.
The next time someone whom I have mentioned (on the "Why are Diocesan Advisors Such Gits" thread) tells me that I need to do X I may just have to tell him what I think. Getting lots and lots of potentially useful ideas is not helpful, as I then have to sort the wheat from the dubious matter from the chaff. A few would be helpful to kick start one's own thinking, but the suggestion overload I am getting is just inducing paralysis.
Now I know we Christians like to kid ourselves about all sorts of things ..... but it isn't really ad orientem in the vast majority of churches. It is best described as either facing the wall or backs to the people depending on your view on the etiquette involved with turning your back on the people you are supposed to be worshipping with.
Everyone except the folk in the back row have their backs to at least some of the people they're worshipping with. I grew up with ad populum but ad orientem is very common in the SEC and so long as the words are audible I don't mind either way.
The weather has been cooperating, so the temperature in the chancel has stayed at a steady 65 to 68F since the heat was cut off last week. The nave will be a little cooler, but not much - say 62 to 65F. Looking at the weather forecast, the next 10 days look benign too, so all is good. I think the fabric is going to be OK. Thank God for the early spring.
We are on the 10 or less rule here, so I am opening the church for prayer for a couple of hours each morning for private prayer. During that time I am reading Morning Prayer (and Ante-Communion, this week) in church, but I am not advertising the liturgy, though the members of the parish who are familiar with my routine know I am likely to be there reading Matins at that time of day.
Technically, we could have our normal weekday activities, if only the usual people came as we usually run 4 to 7 and they scatter themselves all over the nave even without Covid-19. On the other hand, I don't want to risk the bored or the curious pushing us over the mandated number, so everything remains cancelled. Three of us did the Palm liturgy on Sunday, and we will probably do Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter too. I am seeing if we can record our service, and then stream it later.
After a long interregnum the new Incumbent of a neighbouring benefice has been “ virtually licensed”.
Churchwardens and other legally necessary persons in virtual attendance.
Similar things are happening in the Church of Scotland.
Anyway our vicar lead the service of the Word with lay readers reading the OT and NT passages, the vicar read the Gospel of the last supper from John, and we responded to a timely Prayers of the People.
Instead of a homily, we were invited to share our thoughts and reflections. I shared that I had just learned that the ministry center I volunteer at has gotten the go-ahead from our city council to start building apartments on the mission property to house the poor, the elderly on fixed income, and many living on the edge. Thanks be to God!
We are doing our best to keep worshiping and keep connecting.
Same functionality. Free at all levels. Same level of security. There's an app but it works fine from a browser. Phone of confuser both.
Licensing is usually a paperwork exercise for us even in normal times. It is the induction/installation that will have to be delayed in the present circumstances. We also have two ordinations 'on ice' because of the Covid-19 restrictions, which is awkward to say the least. I am hoping that the restrictions ease enough to be able to ordain the men in question soon. They should have been done at the Lent Ember Days, but the paperwork got stalled in Standing Committee, then the Covid-19 restrictions bit. I am praying they can be ordained come the Trinity ordination.
I hope it works for you. We use Jitsi but it's clunky compared to Zoom. May be to do with the server space our tech person has rented.
We get a number of transfers, and licensing is our opportunity to get rid of the folks who are not make the grade because they either
(a) have an active disciplinary somewhere (or should have!)
(b) got their theological education off the back of the fruit-loops box,
(c) persons ordained by the Old Catholics (multiple problems there), or
(d) have theological views that are not compatible with the doctrinal stance of the Church.
Of the options (b) is by far the most common the commonest problem being that they were ordained by a bishop with a fast set of hands twenty years after they spent a couple of years at 'Dispie Bible Skool' and have not learnt a damn any thing since about Anglicanism. Persons actually coming up within the denomination are actually fairly easy to deal with in that we are supervising them all the way through so we have a shrewd idea of what we are getting.
* A committee recommends action to be taken by the Presbytery. A commission has full authority to act on behalf of the Presbytery and need only report its actions to the Presbytery.
I guess those due in June will be licensed in some way or other (to get them on the payroll at the right time, if nothing else), but quite what they'll be able to do in the way of lawful ministry is not clear - in any case, churches may well still be closed then (hopefully not, but...).
I can think of one diocese (but won't name it or even its country) where that's almost de riguer. It's probably not world shattering but I was bemused when one of its senior clerics announced on Facebook "Good Friday is not the end of the Easter Season, but it goes on until Easter Day." [where's the rolleyes emoji when I need it?]
@Nick Tamen - The trigger point for making the Diocesan/District Standing Committee (DSC) stir their stumps is when the bishop gets a request for a license. Then it should proceed upon broadly similar lines to your Committee on Ministry except that the recommendation goes to the bishop not the Presbytery. The custom in this diocese is that the Bishop can reject a candidate that has been approved by the DSC, but cannot accept one that has been rejected, but he may ask the DSC to look again.
@Zappa - we have one diocese that ordains far too many 'specials.'* These are usually candidates who have a BA/BS degree, are not in a position to follow the usual training programme, but have done some classes at a Dispie Bible School, so they get to read for orders. The results are mixed, and a couple of years ago the other dioceses said they were not going to accept any more 'specials' ordained in that diocese unless they subsequently obtained the appropriate qualification. The minimum is two years full-time postgraduate study - basically, the old L.Th., but it has a different name now. With glacial slowness, their standard is beginning to rise!
* - named for the old Canon that laid down the minimum required for ...those ordained to the Diaconate in Special Circumstances