A week or so back, I read an article which was suggesting that after Easter we would still experience an indefinite awaiting time until we would be able to re-assemble (re-member is a term I'd commend) as churches and that such an occasion would be a kind of second Easter. Which makes the time now a kind of second Lent.
So I'm suggesting we kind of approach it that way a bit. I'm not saying don't celebrate Easter, just turn the volume down on it a bit and inject some sombre into the interim: some sombre for those struggling to save life, those struggling to continue breathing, those mourning early deaths and the many struggling to adapt to isolation and distrupted lives. By all means continue to remember resurrection and the hope it gives, celebrate it but then Lent was ever oriented to Easter (just read the liturgical preface to the season again).
To be clear, I'm not suggesting a Lent do-over, rather that we have a Lenten thread to the coming weeks and months until Re-Membering can take place.
So what could this look like? Well, I'm considering each Wednesday tracing a cross on my hand with soil**, as a sign harking to the ash cross of Ash Wednesday but with a nod towards the idea of humility -humus or soil being the etymological root of 'humility'. It seems appropriate to recall still our frailty in times such as this.
I'm also going to be thinking about how best to celebrate an Easterish weekend at the end of the crisis. What kind of liturgies would be appropriate? What kinds of themes would be best to highlight or bring to it? Should there be a place for lament? (working answer: yes).
And are there disciplines that are appropriate to this LongLenten time? I'm thinking that perhaps a discipline of reading the resurrection texts seriously and closely against the background of the things we know continue to characterise these times -as mentioned in the first paragraph. Asking what such hope means for people caught most sharply in the jaws of the crisis? What it means to be not just a hearer of the word of the hope of new life but a doer of the hope of new life?
#LongLent #DelayedEaster
Endnotes
*"Brothers and sisters in Christ, since early days Christians have observed with great devotion the time of our Lord’s passion and resurrection and prepared for this by a season of penitence and fasting.
By carefully keeping these days, Christians take to heart the call to repentance and the assurance of forgiveness proclaimed in the gospel, and so grow in faith and in devotion to our Lord..." See here. See also here.
**I'm considering a simple form of words to go with this action. Currently considering an adaptation of the words with ashing. So: "I remember that I am dust, and to dust I shall return, in sure and certain hope of rising to eternal life in Christ Jesus our risen Lord." In that way capturing a sober yet hopeful mood. Or perhaps "I remember that I am dust and to dust shall I return, who will deliver us from this body of death? -Thanks be to God -through our Lord Jesus Christ" or even "... I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live but Christ lives in me: the life I live in the body I live through faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me" (see Gal.2:20)
01 April 2020
Communion via internet?
Our bishops have produced a brief service of Spiritual Communion When Unable to Attend a Celebration of the Eucharist which outlines a brief 'antecommunion' service culminating in an act of spiritual reception of Christ. This to avoid, it would seem, the pre-distribution of bread and wine to participants to be consecrated* by a duly ordained person present remotely by means of the internet. I would guess that this is because we collectively have not yet discussed this possibility in practical theological terms. And I recognise that my characterisation in the previous sentence already pre-loads some assumptions (so critiques might start there!)
So what might be at stake in holding a communion service via an online meeting platform (Teams, Skype, Jitsi, Zoom, Big Blue Button etc)? It seems to me that there is one big difference that leads to consequential difference with a physically gathered community. The congregants are not together in one physical space: they cannot shake hands with one another at the peace, nor receive bread from one hand to another in that physical space, nor take hold of the cup of wine in that space that stood on the altar/table as the presider said the eucharistic prayer. In short there isn't a common loaf and a common cup.
The only way to make it work in real time is for each worshipper or household to bring to the event some bread and some wine of their own. But let's also note, near the outset of consideration, that the Church of England has traditionally not allowed communion to be celebrated by a priest alone**. That said, the definition of 'alone' is part of what is under consideration here. But I do note that if we don't count electronic attendance as 'presence', then a priest-presider cannot 'do communion' on their own even if they are 'witnessed' via media electronica.
The questions that, let's call it, 'remote presence Holy Communion' (RPHC) raise are as follows, I think.
I wonder if concretising it might help to reflect upon these and any other issues. Imagine this: a duly ordained priest has before them on a clear table with a fair linen cloth on it (BCP allusion there!) a chalice of wine and a piece of bread. Perhaps they are in their home, perhaps a private chapel. Before them also is an electronic device using a conferencing platform so that people not in that room can see and hear and also vocally and visually participate in the proceedings. In rooms around the city are a dozen, say, people who are seeing and hearing the priest via their own electronic device connected to the same platform allowing them to be in a conference electronically with their priest. They have have the same order of service before them all. So the remote congregants pray with the priest silently and vocally, some of them read scriptures at appropriate moments, some of them lead the petitionary prayers at the appropriate time, they say the responses at the appropriate moments. They can hear each other and see each other. They greet each other with waves and nods and smiles at the peace. Are they at the same event?
And then ... Well, what next?
Let's say the priest continues, prays the eucharistic prayer with the remote congregants joining in silently and aloud with the opening responses, sanctus and acclamations, Lord's prayer and words of humble access. The priest breaks the bread, consumes it and drinks the wine, in remembrance of Jesus. Has that priest taken communion? Now add to this scenario that each of the remote congregants has also before them a piece of bread and a glass of wine set on a fair linen cloth. Everything is as described in the previous paragraphs and also when it comes to the communion part, each remote congregant breaks the piece of bread before them and drinks the wine before them. Have they taken communion?
In the case of the priest alone consuming bread and wine in that scenario, the answer in BCP terms seems to be 'no' because there is no-one to communicate with the priest. If the remote congregants consume bread and wine also, then the answer is 'yes' if a meeting together really is a meeting together when electronically mediating otherwise remote congregants. It is 'no' if remote congregants do not add up to a meeting.
So at this point I notice that in another area of its life, the CofE has recently published something that may give us an answer to the question about what constitutes a meeting. This is to do with church council meetings check out the article linked to the next paragraph which summarises the article. So, are PCCs allowed to meet without meeting?
"PCCs should continue to meet, albeit remotely by Skype or Zoom or, where that is not possible, by a telephone conference call. Minutes can still be kept of such a “virtual meeting” and record as present all those members taking part." So, for legal purposes a remote-participant meeting is okay. Can this 'okayness' transfer to a meeting for the purposes of Holy Communion? Well, clearly, the ability to act in community is possible since people can speak with and see one another. People's lives are affected by what goes on: minds are changed, emotions are roused or mollified, learning takes place, decisions with binding effect are taken in both kinds of meeting. In terms of the impact on people's hearts and minds clearly a meeting has taken place in both a remotely presenced PCC meeting and a service for worship together. It's not quite the same but the essentials as so far described are in place in both scenarios.
I asked previously whether the people in the scenario were at the same event. If they were watching a football match on a TV in a pub, I would say they were witnessing the same event but not 'at' the football match. However, I do think that the interactive nature of the scenario (they can see and hear each other and interact directly) means that they are doing more than witness an event (in this case a service), they are 'at' that event. They are participants in every meaningful way that I can think of.
The next question, then, is whether the addition to this scenario of bread and wine taken and shared in remembrance of Jesus depends crucially on non-remote presence in some way for it to be okay. Is there something essential added by the ability to physically touch other congregants? It's hard to say so when a number of congregations of the CofE have actually tried to avoid touching (in some congregations extreme social distancing has long been a norm) and yet still celebrated a Eucharist which is presumably okay. They have been remote in space. Though still housed within the same building -so is it being under one roof that is important, or in the same room? And if so, what would it be about that shared space that constitutes the okayness of the communion? If some congregants were in a different room, linked by a live electronic link and then some of the eucharistic bread and wine was taken to that other room for distribution, is that okay? (It's not far from what I've seen happen in some cathedrals when there's been a big service; there's been in effect two or three congregations sharing a common acoustic space -often electronically enhanced). I'm going to say 'yes' -even if not ideal.
Is there something essential added by having the same loaf and same cup of wine? -Given that many churches have already busted that by having wafers or more than one cup -even having individual cups ... well, let's say I don't think it 'breaks' communion; again even if it's not ideal. Is essentialness, then, in having the elements from the same altar/table? Maybe, but how far is that a convenience of administration? Ie if individual cups are pre-distributed, are they not consecrated? If a bunch of deacons held bread and wine as the president led the eucharistic prayer, would those pieces of bread and cups of wine be unconsecrated? I suspect no-one would seriously argue that.
I think you see where this is going by now. I'm struggling to find any essential thing missing from the RPHC scenario. It may not be ideal, but then a number of ways of doing communion often aren't. I don't think it's ideal to have wafers (far from it) but I don't think I don't have communion if the bread is a bunch of wafers.
The one last thing that occurs to me as something that might be essential and missing from the RPHC scenario is that the bread and the wine are the same bread and wine. In the RPHC scenario people might have different bread and wine: one has Sainsbury's white bread and a merlot, another has home-baked bread and homebrew and so on. And yet the fact that we can have wafers and individual cups seems to apply here too. And if we did think this was a deal-breaker, couldn't we arrange to pre-distribute to the virtual congregants -and wouldn't that be a grand way to symbolise the unity, fellowship and belonging to one another of that congregation? So, I can't really think of a substantial theological reason not to have RPHC. I'm left with only concerns about possible misuses. These would be things like whether people have suitable bread and wine, whether they can be trusted to be suitably reverent, to dispose of left-overs in a seemly fashion, not to open it up to mischief with irreverent persons making of with consecrated elements for no-good purposes, and so on. And there are practical ways forward for all of those things because they all exist in some form in the non remote way of doing things currently.
I have a final act of naughtiness to perpetrate on this reflection. Canon B40*** of the CofE canons says we're not normally supposed to celebrate Holy Communion anywhere but a duly consecrated building without permission from our bishop. The exception is that we may do so in the houses of people who are sick -such that they can't attend church. Clearly the situation of pandemic lockdown was not in view in drawing up that canon leading to the impediment of a priest from entering such a house for fear of infecting the household (or being themself infected). It does seem to me that allowing RPHC in such a case would be within the spirit of the canon.
And as a bit of further reading: try this twitter search and find that lots of people are already not scrupled about this. (PS a more recent article in Church Times seems to coincide at points with this post)
End notes
* I'm using the word 'consecrated' as shorthand for the processes of making sure that the bread and wine are the elements of communion when people take them in remembrance of Christ. You'll notice I'm trying to avoid being specific about which theological interpretation of it is foregrounded. I take it as unremarkable that God can do whatever God wants. So a further question could be -do we think God wants us to do this?
**I've not been able to find this in the CofE canons though the BCP says: And there shall be no Celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the Parish of discretion to receive the Communion: yet there shall be no Communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the Priest. (Book of Common Prayer 1662, postscript to the communion service)
*** Canon B40: "No minister shall celebrate the Holy Communion elsewhere than in a consecrated building within his cure or other building licensed for the purpose, except he have permission so to do from the bishop of the diocese: Provided that at all times he may celebrate the Holy Communion as provided by Canon B 37 in any private house wherein there is any person sick, or dying, or so impotent that he cannot go to church"
So what might be at stake in holding a communion service via an online meeting platform (Teams, Skype, Jitsi, Zoom, Big Blue Button etc)? It seems to me that there is one big difference that leads to consequential difference with a physically gathered community. The congregants are not together in one physical space: they cannot shake hands with one another at the peace, nor receive bread from one hand to another in that physical space, nor take hold of the cup of wine in that space that stood on the altar/table as the presider said the eucharistic prayer. In short there isn't a common loaf and a common cup.
The only way to make it work in real time is for each worshipper or household to bring to the event some bread and some wine of their own. But let's also note, near the outset of consideration, that the Church of England has traditionally not allowed communion to be celebrated by a priest alone**. That said, the definition of 'alone' is part of what is under consideration here. But I do note that if we don't count electronic attendance as 'presence', then a priest-presider cannot 'do communion' on their own even if they are 'witnessed' via media electronica.
The questions that, let's call it, 'remote presence Holy Communion' (RPHC) raise are as follows, I think.
- Do we need to have a common loaf and a common cup for it to be okay? (I'm avoiding the word 'valid' because that seems to me freighted with canon-law ramifications).
- What is the value of physical presence that might make it decisive?
- What indeed *is* human presence in such scenarios?
I wonder if concretising it might help to reflect upon these and any other issues. Imagine this: a duly ordained priest has before them on a clear table with a fair linen cloth on it (BCP allusion there!) a chalice of wine and a piece of bread. Perhaps they are in their home, perhaps a private chapel. Before them also is an electronic device using a conferencing platform so that people not in that room can see and hear and also vocally and visually participate in the proceedings. In rooms around the city are a dozen, say, people who are seeing and hearing the priest via their own electronic device connected to the same platform allowing them to be in a conference electronically with their priest. They have have the same order of service before them all. So the remote congregants pray with the priest silently and vocally, some of them read scriptures at appropriate moments, some of them lead the petitionary prayers at the appropriate time, they say the responses at the appropriate moments. They can hear each other and see each other. They greet each other with waves and nods and smiles at the peace. Are they at the same event?
And then ... Well, what next?
Let's say the priest continues, prays the eucharistic prayer with the remote congregants joining in silently and aloud with the opening responses, sanctus and acclamations, Lord's prayer and words of humble access. The priest breaks the bread, consumes it and drinks the wine, in remembrance of Jesus. Has that priest taken communion? Now add to this scenario that each of the remote congregants has also before them a piece of bread and a glass of wine set on a fair linen cloth. Everything is as described in the previous paragraphs and also when it comes to the communion part, each remote congregant breaks the piece of bread before them and drinks the wine before them. Have they taken communion?
In the case of the priest alone consuming bread and wine in that scenario, the answer in BCP terms seems to be 'no' because there is no-one to communicate with the priest. If the remote congregants consume bread and wine also, then the answer is 'yes' if a meeting together really is a meeting together when electronically mediating otherwise remote congregants. It is 'no' if remote congregants do not add up to a meeting.
So at this point I notice that in another area of its life, the CofE has recently published something that may give us an answer to the question about what constitutes a meeting. This is to do with church council meetings check out the article linked to the next paragraph which summarises the article. So, are PCCs allowed to meet without meeting?
"PCCs should continue to meet, albeit remotely by Skype or Zoom or, where that is not possible, by a telephone conference call. Minutes can still be kept of such a “virtual meeting” and record as present all those members taking part." So, for legal purposes a remote-participant meeting is okay. Can this 'okayness' transfer to a meeting for the purposes of Holy Communion? Well, clearly, the ability to act in community is possible since people can speak with and see one another. People's lives are affected by what goes on: minds are changed, emotions are roused or mollified, learning takes place, decisions with binding effect are taken in both kinds of meeting. In terms of the impact on people's hearts and minds clearly a meeting has taken place in both a remotely presenced PCC meeting and a service for worship together. It's not quite the same but the essentials as so far described are in place in both scenarios.
I asked previously whether the people in the scenario were at the same event. If they were watching a football match on a TV in a pub, I would say they were witnessing the same event but not 'at' the football match. However, I do think that the interactive nature of the scenario (they can see and hear each other and interact directly) means that they are doing more than witness an event (in this case a service), they are 'at' that event. They are participants in every meaningful way that I can think of.
The next question, then, is whether the addition to this scenario of bread and wine taken and shared in remembrance of Jesus depends crucially on non-remote presence in some way for it to be okay. Is there something essential added by the ability to physically touch other congregants? It's hard to say so when a number of congregations of the CofE have actually tried to avoid touching (in some congregations extreme social distancing has long been a norm) and yet still celebrated a Eucharist which is presumably okay. They have been remote in space. Though still housed within the same building -so is it being under one roof that is important, or in the same room? And if so, what would it be about that shared space that constitutes the okayness of the communion? If some congregants were in a different room, linked by a live electronic link and then some of the eucharistic bread and wine was taken to that other room for distribution, is that okay? (It's not far from what I've seen happen in some cathedrals when there's been a big service; there's been in effect two or three congregations sharing a common acoustic space -often electronically enhanced). I'm going to say 'yes' -even if not ideal.
Is there something essential added by having the same loaf and same cup of wine? -Given that many churches have already busted that by having wafers or more than one cup -even having individual cups ... well, let's say I don't think it 'breaks' communion; again even if it's not ideal. Is essentialness, then, in having the elements from the same altar/table? Maybe, but how far is that a convenience of administration? Ie if individual cups are pre-distributed, are they not consecrated? If a bunch of deacons held bread and wine as the president led the eucharistic prayer, would those pieces of bread and cups of wine be unconsecrated? I suspect no-one would seriously argue that.
I think you see where this is going by now. I'm struggling to find any essential thing missing from the RPHC scenario. It may not be ideal, but then a number of ways of doing communion often aren't. I don't think it's ideal to have wafers (far from it) but I don't think I don't have communion if the bread is a bunch of wafers.
The one last thing that occurs to me as something that might be essential and missing from the RPHC scenario is that the bread and the wine are the same bread and wine. In the RPHC scenario people might have different bread and wine: one has Sainsbury's white bread and a merlot, another has home-baked bread and homebrew and so on. And yet the fact that we can have wafers and individual cups seems to apply here too. And if we did think this was a deal-breaker, couldn't we arrange to pre-distribute to the virtual congregants -and wouldn't that be a grand way to symbolise the unity, fellowship and belonging to one another of that congregation? So, I can't really think of a substantial theological reason not to have RPHC. I'm left with only concerns about possible misuses. These would be things like whether people have suitable bread and wine, whether they can be trusted to be suitably reverent, to dispose of left-overs in a seemly fashion, not to open it up to mischief with irreverent persons making of with consecrated elements for no-good purposes, and so on. And there are practical ways forward for all of those things because they all exist in some form in the non remote way of doing things currently.
I have a final act of naughtiness to perpetrate on this reflection. Canon B40*** of the CofE canons says we're not normally supposed to celebrate Holy Communion anywhere but a duly consecrated building without permission from our bishop. The exception is that we may do so in the houses of people who are sick -such that they can't attend church. Clearly the situation of pandemic lockdown was not in view in drawing up that canon leading to the impediment of a priest from entering such a house for fear of infecting the household (or being themself infected). It does seem to me that allowing RPHC in such a case would be within the spirit of the canon.
And as a bit of further reading: try this twitter search and find that lots of people are already not scrupled about this. (PS a more recent article in Church Times seems to coincide at points with this post)
End notes
* I'm using the word 'consecrated' as shorthand for the processes of making sure that the bread and wine are the elements of communion when people take them in remembrance of Christ. You'll notice I'm trying to avoid being specific about which theological interpretation of it is foregrounded. I take it as unremarkable that God can do whatever God wants. So a further question could be -do we think God wants us to do this?
**I've not been able to find this in the CofE canons though the BCP says: And there shall be no Celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the Parish of discretion to receive the Communion: yet there shall be no Communion, except four (or three at the least) communicate with the Priest. (Book of Common Prayer 1662, postscript to the communion service)
*** Canon B40: "No minister shall celebrate the Holy Communion elsewhere than in a consecrated building within his cure or other building licensed for the purpose, except he have permission so to do from the bishop of the diocese: Provided that at all times he may celebrate the Holy Communion as provided by Canon B 37 in any private house wherein there is any person sick, or dying, or so impotent that he cannot go to church"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...