Motion 17. Diverse Worship Participation

Discussion in '2022 General Discussion' started by CRfromQld, Jun 13, 2022.

  1. CRfromQld

    CRfromQld Moderator Staff Member

    Posts:
    429
    Likes Received:
    198
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The Rev’d Canon Gary Harch to move; The Rev’d Dr Peter Catt seconding:

    That this Synod:
    • 1. Recognize the diverse experiences of participating in worship over the last three years, and the limits of our canonical structures.
    • 2. Requests Diocesan Council (DC) to consult with all interested parties and obtain legal advice regarding the present definition of ‘elector’ in our Canons.
    • 3. Requests DC to report back to the next Synod or sooner, if necessary with changed regulations and/or suggested canonical amendments, in response to in particular, but not limited to, the following questions:
      • a) Given the work of the PMC and the variety of electronic services offered, is there any situation where someone who views any electronic worship service, either live or recorded, can be counted as an attendee?
      • b) Is anyone who views worship, either live or recorded, with a real or assumed name, able to then state they are a ‘communicant parishioner’ ie a communicant ‘member of this church who is at least eighteen years of age and who has been for a period of not less than three months and is an accustomed worshipper in the said Parish’ and thus are able to recorded as an elector in a parish?
      • c) If b is affirmative, that is those who describes themselves as a ‘communicant parishioner’ solely by viewing past recorded service are electors, are they also eligible for election and/or appointment to parish positions eg warden, nominator, synod representative, parish councilor, treasurer and /or other positions in a parish?
     
  2. CRfromQld

    CRfromQld Moderator Staff Member

    Posts:
    429
    Likes Received:
    198
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think this raises some good questions. Viewing recorded services on line should not qualify someone as a communicant parishioner and elector. Someone could binge watch 13 recorded services and not have met a single member of the parish. The requirement for "a period of not less than three months" was probably reasonable in a time when weekly attendance was the norm and would mean attendance at about 13 services.

    My thought (after 5 minutes of deliberation) is that a person should attend at least 12 services in person and have established rapport with several other members in order to be considered a member of the community. Some people could achieve this in 3 months, others might take a year.
     
  3. Debbie Eustace

    Debbie Eustace New Member

    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Viewing services online is growing and particularly useful for parishioners who can no longer attend church services due to mobility, health or other issues. However as far as I am aware even though the number of viewers is registered it doesn't mean they have watched the whole service. So anyone who just clicks on the service is registered as a viewer.

    With regard to being recorded as an elector, where are the checks and balances that these viewers have not already been made electors in other churches (overseas, interstate or local) especially those who view a number of services from a number of different parishes? How can a viewer be a communicant parishioner by just passively watching recorded services? How could they be an effective elector if they do not personally know anyone in the parish?

    If there is other interaction, e.g. Zoom then perhaps this might be a different scenario.
     
  4. CRfromQld

    CRfromQld Moderator Staff Member

    Posts:
    429
    Likes Received:
    198
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Even Zoom can be a passive interaction, or no interaction at all.
     
  5. Graeme Smyth

    Graeme Smyth New Member

    Posts:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm glad this question is being asked - it is very important both that those genuine members limited to online participation can be recognised and also to provide structure, mechanism an advice to parishes to prevent potential abuse of people from outside the respective communities.