• Should churches use e-mail? Or indeed blogging?

    Yesterday’s post about the internet and what we can learn from the demise of HMV didn’t raise that many comments but it certainly did the rounds, being more shared on Facebook than anything that I’ve written in months. It was picked up as a conversation topic by the Anglican Church of Canada’s The Conversation too. I think The Conversation is a private social network which that church runs. I’m interested in that in itself but I’m going to leave learning about that for another day.

    Today I want to pick up on something that was said in the comments. This came in from Bosco:

    I’m not as convinced as you about the value of email. Convince me. I suspect it is a dying medium – but we should still hop on while it is still alive, conscious that young people don’t use it. It is still-useful last millennium technology.

    I know what Bosco is talking about. The use of email is often said to be falling and falling much faster amongst the young than the old.  (Oops, I mean younger and older, don’t I?).

    I’ve a feeling that email is not going away quite that fast. More that it is changing. It seems to me that as people are getting more and more ways of communicating then they naturally choose the most appropriate for what it is they want to communicate.

    If you want to meet up with friends, it is much easier to plan things on a social network than by email. However, that presumes that you are all on the same system.

    Ubiquity is the thing here. Most people I know are on Facebook. However just about everyone I want to communicate with has an email account.

    Email is good for some things. Twitter for others. Facebook for others.

    Depends on audience, urgency and what I’m trying to say.

    As a sideline, I’d say that I’m seeing a decline in blogging. And paradoxically a continued rise in the importance of blogging.

    It seems to me that there are fewer blog posts being written. Quite a number of people who have tried the blogging lark are finding it a bit of a bind and giving up. After all, social networks beat blogging as a way of letting your mates know what is in your head every minute during the day and that was what a lot of people were using blogs for.

    The blogs that are lasting are, unsurprisingly, those where the author has a clear idea of what they are trying to communicate. I think I’m like a number of people who are keeping up the stream of consciousness on twitter whilst saving blog posts for more substantial posts. Fewer blog posts – better quality. What’s not to like?

    I think that I primarily use blogging to perform and converse, email to inform and converse and preaching and social networks to beguile and converse. However that may just be me. The primary thing is that they are all about conversation.

    Some of the choices that people make about their choice of online communication medium are all about tone. Email has become a relatively formal way of communicating. My guess is that it is still the case that most people communicate more by using email than social networks when they are working whilst the opposite may be true when they are not working.

    Am I right about that?

6 responses to “Here or there?”

  1. Gary Avatar

    Up there. High altar. No doubt.

  2. Tom Allen Avatar

    I am very much with Richard Giles on this one – there should liturgically only be one main altar – ideally this is achieved by romoving the former High altar and dedicating that space to some other purpose – where that is not possible as in historic cathedrals then it should be left dormant (covered in a simple cloth perhaps) and only the altar which is being used for worship should be dressed since this is in fact THE altar.

    Despite all the reservations about removing former altars in the end it solves long-term problems, and provides a single visual focus for Eucharistic worship. At times when a high altar is needed then the new altar can moved there.

    This kind of fuzziness illustrates that our liturgical practice has become dominated by hertiage criteria.

    I am about to replace our main altar with something moveable and aesthetically more appropriate, but am facing a Registrars ruling that the current altar (and former eastward facing number more recently provided with wheels and moved to the chancel!) must be burnt, and that the wood frontal cannot be used for a screen.

    Dont’ we get ourselves tied up in knots!
    Tom

  3. Stewart Avatar

    A thought came to my mind this afternoon. At the Creed we all face east. This results in the choir turning their back on the Nave Altar and in most cases put the High Altar in their sight.

    Considering Tom’s comments, another thought thinking about some English Cathedrals which have multiple altars around the building, it is not usually possible to see more than one at a time. Some have a chapel behind the High Altar – behind a screen.

    Turning back to St Mary’s – all the action at the 10:30 service is centred and focused around the Nave Altar. However there is still the High Altar, the Pheobe Traquair Reredos and Gwyneth Leach mural of Our Lady at the East End. To my mind their presence enhances the worship around the Nave Altar and does not detract from it.

  4. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    The Altar is a table, where we commemorate a meal together. Clearly (to my mind) we should all be sitting round it, as we do (more or less) at present. The table reminds me that Jesus instituted the Last Supper when he was among us (HERE), not somewhere else (THERE).

    I very much hope that the Altar in St. Mary’s can be left where it is.

  5. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    It seems to me curious that the practice that I inherited was to light and dress the high altar whilst using the nave altar. It makes no sense, except perhaps to highlight St Mary’s puzzling parallel worlds of deep conservatism mingled with radical liberalism.

    Whist tending to agree with Andrew’s sentiments, it is worth remembering that the nave altar could hardly be said to have stayed in one place these last 20 years.

  6. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    Here. Both. Loving the paradox.

    But maybe I only say that beccause the only church I’ve regularly worshiped in where there are clearly two visible altars is St Mary’s and that’s what I’m used to. I’ve never found it distracting that the high altar is dressed and lit, even though the nave altar is where the action is, so to speak. But then, would I notice if the high altar wasn’t dressed and lit? Probably not.

    I do love the nave altar, peripatetic as it is!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Verbatim

    This would have made a good verbatim for discussion o­n the Masters course I took at New College. It has everything: self-image, body-modification, presuppositions about the church and clergy, euphemism and managing change.Angela-the-Hairdresser:  So, just the same cut as last time. Short and sensible?Self:  How about something a bit more funky – some people have…

  • Another invitation

    Another invitation comes in to go and speak to the people of Glasgow about sex – this time from the museum service, of all places. It is the third such invitation this month. The people of that city are insatiable.They will have to make do with the contribution that I'm making at the Episcopal Cathedral…

  • 20 Questions

    I took o­ne of these o­n-line personality quizes yesterday. [It was my day off, after all.] This o­ne was called 20 Questions to a Better Personality.  This was the result: You are a SECL–Sober Emotional Constructive Leader. This makes you a Politician.You cut deals, you change minds, you make things happen. You would prefer to…

  • Dog Collars

    There are many mysteries in religion, but none so impenetrable as the question of where dog collars go. I almost caught Tilly attempting to eat o­ne the other day, which might have answered both the mystery of where dog collars go and the question of what is wrong with the cat's belly this week. However, she…