I've not dealt with a similar situation in Church, thankfully, but I do appreciate the concerns.

Having no venue on campus large enough for the expected audience, my students performed our Christmas concert at a local charter school in the auditorium, which is reasonably well-designed, acoustically speaking. They still had microphones up from their concert the evening before, and told me that it was essential that we use them. I was skeptical, so I tried it without - walked all over the hall while the choirs sang. It was fainter to be sure, but it was honest, and the balance between singers was very good. (Actually, it wasn't all that good, but it was honest.)

This honesty is important to me as a conductor in a performance situation, because in the course of my conducting - the gestures I make to different sections, the volumes I try to evoke from my singers - I need to know that what I'm hearing standing in front of them is as close as possible to what the audience is hearing - even if that's a little or even somewhat significantly quieter in volume. Unless I have someone running sound who has tons of classical music experience (or at least whose sound work with classical music I've heard before), I can't really trust that person to make sure that the sound is the same or better than what I'm hearing.

While most sound people seem desperate to want to use equipment to make it better, the problem is most them don't know what better is. Better might be adjusting for a room that emphasizes the high-end or low-end. Better might be clearer diction (that is still together without individuals sticking out). Better is not necessarily louder. And louder brings side effects. But attend any popular music concert, or even go to a wedding reception, or watch American Idol, and you'll see what shapes and influences these techs and the audiences (or congregations) which hear our music.

So, I took a stand and went without the mics to my hosts' disbelief. Some people in the auditence told me they thought the choirs were too soft, but it was nobody whose taste I had any reason to trust. I knew that what I was hearing was basically what they were hearing, even if it was softer.

Choral music (in or outside of church) - with the exception of some vocal jazz - does not need amplification and should not be amplified except under the most specific circumstances. And even then only in the hands of professionals who really know what it's supposed to sound like.

As for people missing seeing you, that's a whole other issue I'll let someone else tackle.

Congratulations on moving your choir to the loft. I recommend:

1) No mikes: not for the choir, not for the cantor, and not for the priest, when he sings.

2) Bring the cantor up to the loft. Involve the choir in the verses for the responsorial psalm.

3) The organ must support the singing, not overpower it.

4) Turn off the organ for some chant, such as the Introit and Communio.

5) Rehearse in the loft. Clear out any clutter, that might baffle the sound: extra chairs, piles of books, coatracks. Close the swell box, if the louvers form part of the acoustic shell. Set up a multi-verse hymn at rehearsal, and a different position for each verse: single line in the front of the loft, single line midway, single line in back, double line close ranked, double line spaced, etc. Start the choir, then walk downstairs to the pews. Find out what position gives the best volume, blend, and clarity.

6) Use your regular column in the bulletin to explain your goals: a better sound, supporting congregational participation, removing a distraction.

I wholeheartedly support your choir's move to the choirloft. Don't "cave-in" to the mike
use & the "sound guy." These are the very people who ruined the acoustic in many a fine church. They tried to go for a recording studio (absolutely no ambience) environment, so
that the "sound guy" could mix & balance, thereby "improving the sound." The result was
to create worship spaces where the people could not participate, but rather became the "audience" listening to the "band" on the "stage." When I came to Saint Edward, we moved the cantors to choirloft with the organ & choir. We never "mike" the singers; and two weeks ago, old carpeting was ripped-up from the sanctuary floor and hardwood was
laid. I could hear a great difference, not only in the fine natural chanting of the celebrant, but also the way the sanctuary space added ambience to the singing of the congregation! The first time I heard our school children singing the "Our Father" and the
added resonance, I was thrilled. Experiment with vocal projection and choral placement.
You'll soon experience a much more prayerful choral sound. All the Best to you!

When it comes to using mics in church or choir in general less is more. Don't use any amplification if at all possible. Unless you are using a real high-end PA system with good overhead choir mics it will only make the choir sound worse--louder, perhaps but not natural.

Could a trained classical singer fill the room without a mic? If a soloist can, then so can a choir of only 6 people. They may need more vocal training, but that can be challenging with a volunteer choir. That being said, there are some spaces where the acoustics work against you so much that some amplification is necessary. Are you using an overhead condenser choir mic or a dynamic, hand-held style? The latter will never work for choral singing (except in the case of jazz/pop choirs where each singing has their own mic). Also, consider whether it is truly a volume issue or a clarity issue. If the acoustics are decent or better (lots of hard surfaces for sound to reflect) then it is most likely a clarity issue--competing with noisy children or cell phones etc.

As for running through the house system vs a separate rear PA that depends on a lot of factors too. If the house system is superior in quality and the micing of the choir is subtle that is probably your best bet. But it depends on speaker placement etc. Our church has one main speaker in the ceiling in the front, and while the choir sings from the back, the sound all mixes up near the ceiling. We also have a large balcony that sticks out halfway over the main floor. Sound doesn't wrap around corners well. If the balcony didn't stick out so far I would not mic the choir at all.

If you have lots of speakers along the walls on the main floor etc., then I would only use that for spoken word and have a separate system near the choir (providing it makes them sound good) so the sound can be as natural as possible (which ideally would be not amplified at all).

It is not that difficult to fill a church with only one voice. Something that has helped me immensely was a tip on the internet: Imagine you breath into your lower back; that'll ensure the right position, although it sounds anatomical nonsense. I learned it from a German translation of this article.

Sending the sound through the PA system of the church approximates Muzak. There is a purpose in the sound coming from its point of origin, rather than from a kind of surround-sound. The action of the choir, as the action of the priest, is a liturgical action, the act of a worshipper or worshippers, each in its proper location. The sound should identify that location. This is as crucial, perhaps more so, for the priest than for the choir. So the priest should not be using a microphone--solution: he should sing his parts, then he will be heard.

Put an elevated ambo in a building with seating for 2000, with carpet on the walls and big fluffy chairs for the congregation and you're still going to have all sorts of issues.

Good point. That's why while acoustic sound is ideal but not possible in every situation.

Here is the article PDF: http://archphila.org/evangelization/worship/music/forms/LocationofChoirandMusicalInstruments.pdf

Maybe my use of the word negative is to harsh but when reading the article and points made (think of it when reading from singing on the floor) and the article just seems to "favor" those points. Though I just skimmed through the first couple pages during the meeting last night. Honestly didn't read the whole entire article yet.

I think the primary reason that should be cited is that music ministry is able to be more together. Without a conductor it is nearly impossible to have a choir sign at the proper tempo with the organ due to sound delay. I am a professional singer and the only reason I can do it is because I tell the organist to follow me and that I will maintain the tempo myself. Ultimately, this aspect of music ministry is not a democracy.