Distract or prevent. . .

The invasive nature of the screens in our lives has been labeled a distraction from the interpersonal and face to face relationships once nearly universal in society.  While that is certainly true and the statistics report the decline in the amount of time we actually spend in the company of another, there may be something more at work here.  Screens may not simply be a distraction but may actually prevent us from either desiring or experiencing the direct socialization across the age spans of most people.  Remember that even if the screen is not the dominant force it is in other generations, those for whom it is merely an occasional distraction also must live with those for whom it is a constant activity.  So, for example, those for whom a phone call or personal visit would be normative live and work with those for whom at text suffices and for whom the screen is a constant activity.

The fruits of all of this are seen not only in the distance experienced across American society but also in the rise of loneliness and the painful isolation of people from each other.  The younger the age bracket, the more significant the loss of these face to face interactions and the more profound the experience of such loneliness and isolation.  I posted before of how this affects dating and courtship but it is not only felt in romantic relationships.  More and more people are reporting fewer and fewer real friendships and their circle of acquaintances that involves face to face contact is similarly reducing -- not simply due to the screen but prevented by those screens.

Virtual relationships are becoming the norm and in person relationships -- from romance to friendship -- are becoming the exception.  Again, as I mentioned above, this may not have its source in older age groups not typically so wedded to the screen but those in those generations still suffer from an increase of loneliness and isolation due to the screen replacing the way the younger people in their lives communicate and interact.  For the youth, this is reflected in the increase of virtual communication after school in place of the in person time spent together.  For the aged, this is reflected in the dominance of the screen for everything from medical visits to regular communication from their children and grandchildren and the shift to online sources of supply instead of the social character of shopping in stores.  Across the spectrum of ages and generations, the trajectory toward the virtual in place of the personal only increases with each passing year.  While the pandemic may have accelerated this shift or caused some of it, the direction of our social relationships was already headed this way long before anyone ever heard of Covid.

The screens have also had an influence over church, particularly in worship.  The Church is the gathered people of God, sharing a common baptismal identity, confessing their sins and being absolved, addressed by the voice of God in His Word, hearing together the sermon which applies that Word, and keeling together at the rail to receive the body and blood of Christ in His Holy Sacrament.  Corporate worship is by nature a social activity.  Unless you think of the people in the pews as inhabiting their own personal space (like the now passe phone booth), everything -- from the pronouns to the liturgy to the hymnody to the communion -- is not accidentally but intentionally social.  When the screen at home replaces the place in the pew among the gathered in one place, it does not simply affect the person at home but the whole church.  When the Church dares to presume that something online is a fitting or even adequate substitute for the common gathering of God's people around His Word and Table, we betray what worship is and allow those who opt for the screen the false comfort and idea that it is all the same, equal, and equally salutary.

Another arena in which our common life is lost when we no longer come together is the life of prayer.  Today the prayer life of God's people is almost solely seen in individual terms.  While we are forced to remember that we pray Our Father even when we are alone, it becomes almost an irrelevant remembrance when our prayers are solely about our selves and our wants or needs.  The Prayer of the Church, like the Collect of the Day, are not simply built upon the foundation of an assembly but direct the assembly to their common concerns when we can be consumed by our individual ones.  Sadly, the request for prayers on social media has replaced the prayer list of the congregation in which we were given names to be included in the intercessions of the faithful at home as well as in God's House.  The reduction of the services of God's House to the Divine Service has left us without a memory of or a need for the prayer services of the various hours.  There was a time when God's people knew not only the Divine Service by heart but also Matins and Vespers -- because, of course, they prayed them together and often. 

I for one am disappointed at the ease at which some churches, even sacramental ones, have rushed to embrace technology and to use the screen to replace or even supplement what happens in person.  For one thing it smacks of desperation.  For another, it means we did not fully understand or appreciate what was happening even before there were such screens.  In this case, the virtual has only revealed how shallow we treated going to church and what happened there.  If those of us in the clergy had done a better job of catechesis, fewer folks in the pews would have accepted the digital in place of the real as the new norm of their lives as the people of God.  I wish I could say that this is merely a problem in worship but it also affects so many other areas of our life together.  Gone are the days when you would expect more than a smattering of the whole at teaching activities or potluck meals or work days or fellowship activities.  While certainly not the reason for our being, the secondary benefits of our life together are both the fruits of our common life in worship and a reinforcement of that common life around altar, font, and altar.  Surely no one expects a digital connection to replace any of these but, sadly, too many have found in them an acceptable substitute.

Take down the ubiquitous screens mounted up front to compete with the attention of the altar or pulpit (or even stained glass and crucifix) and return the attention of the people to liturgy, hymnal, and those around them.  Such screens might be tolerable if they merely distracted us but when they compete for the things that should have our attention, they prevent what is meant to be.  The books in the pews are not there for decorative purposes but so that we might sing from them together as one.  The appointments of the chancel and nave are not merely for show but as the things that point us to what God is doing among us and our response to His gifts.  Even the offering, now more likely digital thanks to technology, is a common act whereby the plate comes to each and all give as they have been blessed for the common work of church and mission.  These are just some of the things we have done that hastened the loneliness and isolation even within the Church among those who need to be together as well as need to hear the Word and receive the Supper.