As our experience with 'Claytons church' evolve, it is interesting to see the changes required not just in the delivery techniques, but also in the participation techniques. Along with some disadvantages, there are many opportunities apparent in the new model.
Perhaps because we are often given a close up view of the preacher looking directly at us, sermons seem a lot more personal. This introduces a more direct connection between speaker and listener, which invites a more emotional response.
That experience is different even from watching a recording of someone preaching to a live audience. The preacher doesn't get any cues from the audience, so will probably use less dynamic range (and fewer attempts at humour). That could become dry.
Much like the change from live to streaming television, we can tune in when we want, and consume in several small pieces, or even binge watch. We can switch 'channels' or shop around. One of my concerns is that as viewers the polish and style of delivery will become more important to us than the message: that 'infotainment' will triumph, resulting in the dumbing down of teaching.
Singing is one area which to me feels more disengaged, and less essential, partly due to the lack of a communal voice against which to raise our own. The delivery medium is more unforgiving than live performance: a few off notes really stand out when viewing a recording of just one or two performers. The level of professionalism of the performers makes a huge difference, but there's only amateurs in the very small audience when we sing along at home.
Most surprisingly, the 'after church' conversations via video seem much better than 'real' church, maybe because we are more attentive and less distracted, and we don't need to rush off anywhere. That has been a real positive.
Thanks Andrew. You rightly identify some of the challenges ahead, but also the opportunities. Like you, I've found the interaction in breakout rooms quite good on Sunday mornings.
And I agree about the singing — I wonder if it would be better just to acknowledge that we can't sing together at the moment, and not try. Or perhaps we should think of them as musical items to encourage us with, rather than something to participate in. (From what I have heard, the reaction of people being asked to sing along while watching the church band play a song divides along lines of personal preference — if you're the kind of person who likes to hum or sing along to Christian songs in the car or around the house, then you quite like it; if you're not, then you find it awkward).
... and have been wondering about introducing something like a live blog where we can all see each other commenting, asking questions and responding as we watch a prerecorded service. But hopefully not descending into the partisan lines of shows like Q&A!
Thanks Tony.
As our experience with 'Claytons church' evolve, it is interesting to see the changes required not just in the delivery techniques, but also in the participation techniques. Along with some disadvantages, there are many opportunities apparent in the new model.
Perhaps because we are often given a close up view of the preacher looking directly at us, sermons seem a lot more personal. This introduces a more direct connection between speaker and listener, which invites a more emotional response.
That experience is different even from watching a recording of someone preaching to a live audience. The preacher doesn't get any cues from the audience, so will probably use less dynamic range (and fewer attempts at humour). That could become dry.
Much like the change from live to streaming television, we can tune in when we want, and consume in several small pieces, or even binge watch. We can switch 'channels' or shop around. One of my concerns is that as viewers the polish and style of delivery will become more important to us than the message: that 'infotainment' will triumph, resulting in the dumbing down of teaching.
Singing is one area which to me feels more disengaged, and less essential, partly due to the lack of a communal voice against which to raise our own. The delivery medium is more unforgiving than live performance: a few off notes really stand out when viewing a recording of just one or two performers. The level of professionalism of the performers makes a huge difference, but there's only amateurs in the very small audience when we sing along at home.
Most surprisingly, the 'after church' conversations via video seem much better than 'real' church, maybe because we are more attentive and less distracted, and we don't need to rush off anywhere. That has been a real positive.
Thanks Andrew. You rightly identify some of the challenges ahead, but also the opportunities. Like you, I've found the interaction in breakout rooms quite good on Sunday mornings.
And I agree about the singing — I wonder if it would be better just to acknowledge that we can't sing together at the moment, and not try. Or perhaps we should think of them as musical items to encourage us with, rather than something to participate in. (From what I have heard, the reaction of people being asked to sing along while watching the church band play a song divides along lines of personal preference — if you're the kind of person who likes to hum or sing along to Christian songs in the car or around the house, then you quite like it; if you're not, then you find it awkward).
I think there is a real danger in church becoming even more passive.
... and have been wondering about introducing something like a live blog where we can all see each other commenting, asking questions and responding as we watch a prerecorded service. But hopefully not descending into the partisan lines of shows like Q&A!