‘Will the local Meeting house join the bank and the post office as an expensive and unnecessary anachronism?’ Photo: by Hunter Moranville on Unsplash
Camera shy? Clive Ashwin worries about the rise of online Meetings
‘How can we bring these divergent needs together?’
We are, I believe, witnessing the most fundamental transformation of Quaker worship in Britain since its origins more than 300 years ago. This process began with the introduction into worship of video conferencing systems, notably Zoom, during the recent pandemic.
Until three years ago, if a newcomer to Quakerism asked me what to expect from attending a Meeting for Worship, I could answer them with some confidence. The size of Meetings and the character of accommodation might vary, but otherwise there was a remarkable consistency about the nature and conduct of the traditional Meeting for Worship.
This is no longer the case. I would have to know which Meeting someone intended to visit before I could answer, because the character of worship has diversified into several variants. Some Meetings have remained firmly in-person only, at least for the time being. Some now have a marginal Zoom presence. In others, Zoom has become a constant or even a dominant medium.
A random trawl of Meeting websites provided little clear guidance on this important issue. The Quakers in Britain website currently has a link which describes the use of Zoom in BYM business, but makes no mention of it in relation to worship at Local Meetings.
Apart from Quakerism, most churches post-pandemic appear to have reverted to the form of worship they practised previously, which was predominantly in-person. This does not prevent them from employing Zoom, social media and other online facilities for many other purposes in support of their church community, as well as live-streaming of services.
The use of Zoom became widespread in British Quakerism as an emergency measure in response to the pandemic. It has played a critical part in sustaining Quaker life and worship over a very difficult period. I have no doubt that it will continue to provide valuable support into the future. But there has been limited in-depth discussion of the possible long-term consequences, or how it might transform the experience of Quaker life – in particular, worship. Looked at benevolently, this could be described as a process of creative adaptation. Looked at more critically it could be seen as a result of drift.
Personal attitudes to this transformation vary widely and cover a broad spectrum of responses. At one end of the spectrum, there are many who feel that the presence of remote accessing is highly beneficial or even necessary for the life of any Meeting and has improved upon the historic in-person system which preceded it. It provides welcome access for those who, for reasons of health, age, or distance, are unable to attend in person. Indeed, one could argue that it captures everything which characterises Quaker worship without the cost and inconvenience of attending a Meeting house.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who have never felt completely at ease with the presence of any kind of material apparatus, electronic or otherwise, in Meeting for Worship except as a temporary measure, and might now feel increasingly uneasy. They have the option of seeking another more congenial Meeting, which might involve travelling some distance from their local or preferred Meeting. However, there is nothing to prevent this Meeting in turn adopting the system they have come to escape.
How can we bring these divergent responses and needs together and satisfy them? Quakers, of course, do not vote. We do not a seek ‘consensus’ that will satisfy some but marginalise or hurt others. We accept that even a lone voice might be more discerning than a multitude with a different opinion.
Relocating in-person worship to another day of the week, perhaps monthly, or at another time of day, can be construed as a form of marginalisation or tokenism, perhaps in anticipation of its imminent demise.
We live in an age of dematerialisation. If the ratio of in-person to remote access worshippers becomes more pronounced, must we soon question the justification for the continuance of the concept of the material Meeting house? Could, in some cases, everything be better done online? Will the local Meeting house join the bank, the post office, the office block and the shopping mall as an expensive and unnecessary anachronism? Did the availability of Zoom play a contributory part in the closure of Woodbrooke?
Unlike most faiths, which are often accommodated in purpose-built or even consecrated accommodation, Quaker Meetings make widespread use of converted buildings that can be disposed of without doctrinal or historical complications. If we begin to lose our material presence in many towns and cities, would we also lose one of the most important drivers of new membership and regeneration? If this came to pass, would we have lost something important? Newcomers to Quakerism often find our form of worship quite a challenge. It might be the first time in their life that they have been invited to sit quietly, but not to worry about an issue, solve a problem, or simply doze. Is this process enhanced or hindered by online participation?
One of the suggested benefits of Zoom is that it focusses our attention on those who might otherwise become neglected or marginalised. But Quakers have always had a strong tradition of caring for those who find themselves unable to attend Meeting for Worship in person, through regular contact, visits, and taking worship to them.
Elderly, disabled or isolated Friends often find using the telephone a challenge, let alone a laptop or computer screen. Is there a risk that a growing reliance on pastoral care via Zoom might lead to a corresponding neglect of the needs of this group?
While most churches draw a clear distinction between ‘worship’ and ‘business’, Quakers like to think of all their activities as a form of worship, epitomised in the modern locution ‘Meeting for Worship for Church Affairs’. But this principle can work retroactively: if Zoom is acceptable for a business meeting, which is itself a form of worship, why should its presence be problematic for a regular Meeting for Worship?
If any attempt to preserve in-person worship is rejected without further consideration as divisive or discriminatory we can never move forward and will become captives in a predicament of our own making.
One possible solution, with a degree of equality between the two modes of worship, would be to alternate them each Sunday, with one Sunday offering combined in-person and online participation simultaneously in the Meeting house. The alternate Sunday would offer in-person only in the Meeting house, with a concurrent act of worship on Zoom. This is the arrangement already adopted, for example, by Westminster Meeting. It goes some way to serve the needs of those reliant on Zoom, at the same time preserving the historic cornerstone of Quaker worship.
This would not be a perfect solution, but it would give us time to reflect and seek a better one. It would enable those who might feel alienated by the growing dependence upon electronic systems to feel they are being listened to in the quest for a long-term solution which welcomes all and makes all feel at ease and valued.
Comments
As a member of Westminster Meeting, I agree that the presence of Zoom MfW continues to be an important part of the mix of modes of access for the Westminster community.
The adoption of Zoom early in the pandemic meant that most people were able not only to worship together but to keep in touch with post-Meeting online chatting often going on for 30 minutes.
Nowadays, the availability of Zoom means that whilst I prefer attending in person I can also participate when I’m away from London. The system has been tweaked over time and I value the additional administrative burden that our Elders put into it’s smooth running.
I know that there has been discussion of either a London-wide or National weekly MfW and whilst I can understand the reduced administrative benefits that might emanate from these approaches, I believe that maintaining contact and fellowship within our local Meeting outweighs any administrative saving.
That said, there may be small or less thriving Meetings than Westminster and perhaps there could be merit in moving towards a mix of local MfW in person and area Zooms?
By BruceJJCadbury on 16th May 2024 - 11:04
Sunday MfW at Newcastle meeting is both zoom and those gathered in the Meeting room. Those who worship using the zoom function are left to chat when the Main Meeting goes downstairs for a cuppa.
Zoom availability works for those who live a distance from theMeeting house. It also works for all in bad weather and for those who are temporarily incapacitated, they have a new bout of Covid, or have broken a leg etc. It works for those with long term illness , or the imunocompromised , who can’t physically get into Meeting .
At present the Tyne Bridge is down to one lane of traffic north and one south , so traffic is congested even on Sundays ! I don’t drive and buses are not the full shilling on a Sunday .
They are a few reasons why Zoom worship should continue.
Barbara Bone.
By BarbaraBone on 19th May 2024 - 15:01
Please login to add a comment
