Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: 10,000 new communities in the UK

135678

Comments

  • Parking is going to be a problem in many urban areas, whether the new church is meeting in a house, or in a church building (apart from those churches which do have lots of parking space).

    However. where indeed are all these shiny new converts coming from?
    :confused:

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I've only read a bit about this, but what stood out for me was someone referring to some of the congregation as passengers and talking about having no passengers in their new, improved way of being Church.

    I was so angry I could spit. It was incredibly condescending. At times in my life I have been very involved in my local parish (Vestry Secretary at my childhood parish church, then at the Cathedral here, writing what the then Dean referred to as challenging articles in the Cathedral newsletter, being involved in various church activities, and volunteering at the Cathedral shop).

    There were other times, such after I was raped when it was all I could do to turn up to a small weekday Eucharist, sometimes in tears, where no one made a fuss, but I felt both supported and safe and could begin to claim my life back.

    Will the Church be so busy being VIBRANT* that there is no room for those of us who are healing?

    * Thanks for that word BF.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    You touch on a point that has many aspects.

    Firstly, as you say, some people are in a position where they need to be carried, at least for a time. My own now sadly defunct congregation was like this; we were refugees from mainstream churches, in some cases hurt by them, over neurotype, gender identity, sexuality or just subculture. The "no passengers" rhetoric writes these people off as no use.

    Secondly, I think the "no passengers" rhetoric is fed partially from the "priesthood of all believers" rhetoric; an idea that there is no distinction between lay and cleric, and also from the idea that God has a "ministry" for every member of the church which they must discern and exercise.

    It's all based on a vision of church full of young, fit, well in both body and mind, people, waiting for a rôle to fulfill. When you look at the demographics of these "resource churches" (link in the Vicar Shortage Eccles thread) you can imagine where this might come from.

    Anyone remember the episode of Rev when the young enthusiastic vicar brings his congregation to Adam's church?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Baptism as well, surely?

    You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...

    Definitely, with a caveat that that's in an emergency. Dlet was not well at birth, and so I baptised him with water from the bedside sink. Spoke to the then rector afterwards and he said that it had been a valid baptism.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    You touch on a point that has many aspects.

    Firstly, as you say, some people are in a position where they need to be carried, at least for a time. My own now sadly defunct congregation was like this; we were refugees from mainstream churches, in some cases hurt by them, over neurotype, gender identity, sexuality or just subculture. The "no passengers" rhetoric writes these people off as no use.

    Secondly, I think the "no passengers" rhetoric is fed partially from the "priesthood of all believers" rhetoric; an idea that there is no distinction between lay and cleric, and also from the idea that God has a "ministry" for every member of the church which they must discern and exercise.

    It's all based on a vision of church full of young, fit, well in both body and mind, people, waiting for a rôle to fulfill. When you look at the demographics of these "resource churches" (link in the Vicar Shortage Eccles thread) you can imagine where this might come from.

    Anyone remember the episode of Rev when the young enthusiastic vicar brings his congregation to Adam's church?

    It really annoys me when people think that priesthood of all believers means that all believers at equally priests (not that anyone on this thread is saying that, but @KarlLB implies that it is a thought behind this initiative. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers means that all believers functioning, working, worshipping together are priest for the world. Or so I have been taught. And it makes sense. The body of Christ (singular) is the priest (singular).
  • Hmm: I like the idea of a "collective priesthood"; however Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both talk of God who has |"made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father" - i.e. plural.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers means that all believers functioning, working, worshipping together are priest for the world. Or so I have been taught. And it makes sense. The body of Christ (singular) is the priest (singular).
    That’s what I have been taught as well, but I was also taught it means that the believer needs no intermediary between him- or herself and God. Still, that’s a very different thing from no distinction between clergy and laity—as evidenced by the fact that the traditions that originally stressed the priesthood of all believers maintained such a distinction, obesity in a somewhat different way from the pre-Reformation distinction.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    The priesthood of believers is of course a biblical concept and I think in traditions which have historically emphasised it is interpreted in a sensible way. However, within the CofE, IME, it has been used in the sense I described - God has a ministry planned for you which you must discern and exercise.

    I could be completely wrong but this is the vibe I get from the language used.
  • guilt-tripping is leadership screwing up at the most basic level
  • Jemima the 9thJemima the 9th Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Anyone remember the episode of Rev when the young enthusiastic vicar brings his congregation to Adam's church?

    Ha, yes. One of my favourite bits. He tells Adam not to worry about all the furniture they’ve brought in, the church will be back to its normal state as a cold, lifeless barn soon. Very acutely observed, I thought.
    (God, I miss Rev, but that’s a tangent…)
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The priesthood of believers is of course a biblical concept and I think in traditions which have historically emphasised it is interpreted in a sensible way. However, within the CofE, IME, it has been used in the sense I described - God has a ministry planned for you which you must discern and exercise.

    I could be completely wrong but this is the vibe I get from the language used.

    This is a vibe I recognise. You must discern this ministry, exercise it, and you must be busy and productive in the doing so. Like I said before, I thought - and hoped - the church was supposed to be somewhere you didn’t have to prove yourself through productivity. Even the courses we have - we’ve had something called a Shape course, where afaict, not having done it, you discern your part in ministry, which neatly translates over to your role in doing stuff at church. Yes, I’m cynical.
  • and when you (general you) burn out, doing too much for the church, I guess that there's no room for you as a passenger? Which leaves even more people dissatisfied by the church and with reason to not encourage others to join. I can see the odd flaw in this plan.
  • Something I've noticed about FatherInCharge is that he is not at all fazed when anyone says *No*, in respect of Doing Things in, for, and at the church.

    OTOH, he is very careful to say *Thank you* to everyone for anything that they might contribute, whether as a one-off, or as an ongoing commitment. I'm not just speaking of £££s, of course.

    All are valued, as members of the *Church Family*, whether or not they might be classed as a passenger by these Bright Young Things we're hearing about.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Baptism as well, surely?

    You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...

    Definitely, with a caveat that that's in an emergency. Dlet was not well at birth, and so I baptised him with water from the bedside sink. Spoke to the then rector afterwards and he said that it had been a valid baptism.

    I was baptised as a child and I regard all infant baptism as meaningless. I would estimate that the majority of those in the UK baptised as a child became non believers
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Baptism as well, surely?

    You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...

    Definitely, with a caveat that that's in an emergency. Dlet was not well at birth, and so I baptised him with water from the bedside sink. Spoke to the then rector afterwards and he said that it had been a valid baptism.

    How wonderfully meaningful to be able to do that for your child.

    In church settings (when there is no emergency) it always feels like the child is invited into a larger family of all those gathered too. I was baptised when I was ten, so I knew what was going on (just about) well enough, and could see how it mattered to the community as well as me.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    Cameron wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Baptism as well, surely?

    You know, the other Sacrament expressly commanded by Our Lord...

    Definitely, with a caveat that that's in an emergency. Dlet was not well at birth, and so I baptised him with water from the bedside sink. Spoke to the then rector afterwards and he said that it had been a valid baptism.

    How wonderfully meaningful to be able to do that for your child.

    In church settings (when there is no emergency) it always feels like the child is invited into a larger family of all those gathered too. I was baptised when I was ten, so I knew what was going on (just about) well enough, and could see how it mattered to the community as well as me.

    Indeed. Many people would agree with you, and whether or not the child concerned continues in the Faith, or maybe comes back to it in later life, or doesn't come back at all, is God's business.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Something I've noticed about FatherInCharge is that he is not at all fazed when anyone says *No*, in respect of Doing Things in, for, and at the church.

    OTOH, he is very careful to say *Thank you* to everyone for anything that they might contribute, whether as a one-off, or as an ongoing commitment. I'm not just speaking of £££s, of course.

    All are valued, as members of the *Church Family*, whether or not they might be classed as a passenger by these Bright Young Things we're hearing about.

    As you can imagine, I have Many Thoughts about this issue, some more polite than others. But what struck me about this comment in particular is how narrowly said Bright Young Things are defined by TPTB, or at least seem to be - or rather, it's made very clear who the kind of young clergy that are conspicuously NOT part of this group are. I have so many young clergy friends who endure horrendous treatment by the institutional church due to race, sexuality, gender etc (sometimes the type of treatment that ends up making headlines in the secular press), yet are exactly the kind of people who should be listened to.....and who Mr New Wine definitely won't be listening to.

    I know people will think this is an exaggeration but I am really concerned about the potential influence of the tendrils of the alt-right within the evangelical wing of the C of E, particularly given the current combination of church leadership and govt leadership (ie, the outcry that happened in Parliament over women bishops is unlikely to happen now). It's really not a huge leap from McGinley's comments about marriage, to support for bathroom bills and banning critical race theory in church schools. The leadership of *Anglican* evangelicalism in the UK is overwhelmingly white and upper middle class, and does not have the racial and class diversity of other UK evangelicals such as Pentecostals or even Vineyard.

    Personally, I strongly believe that the religious life and religious communities are going to be key to the kind of community building the church needs, but for all that ++Justin has gone on about supporting the religious life it's noticeable how absent existing religious communities are from any kind of Exciting Vibrant Visionary Strategies. There are even lots of ordained religious for sacramental ministry needs, and without the apparently dead weight of parish ministry. My personal dream of reviving the historical links between the historic shrines of England and religious orders aside, and establishing new Anglican mendicant orders (and having more than one national shrine to start with), it seems like common sense to use communities that are already there?

    (And also, what Huia said 🕯)
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    (As another aside - sorry - I'm not thrilled by this being presented by Fraser and others as an issue of modernity vs tradition, rather than a specific issue of chumocracy and vapid crap being touted as reform. Plenty of us within the church are very aware of the need for lots of reform without identifying as liberal or conservative*, whereas this feels more like a coup.)

    (*liberal and progressive are not the same thing!)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Cameron wrote: »
    How wonderfully meaningful to be able to do that for your child.

    In church settings (when there is no emergency) it always feels like the child is invited into a larger family of all those gathered too. I was baptised when I was ten, so I knew what was going on (just about) well enough, and could see how it mattered to the community as well as me.

    Thank you - it is something I look back on with deep pleasure (even if at the time I was more than a bit concerned).

    We use the standard APBA form for baptism, and that builds the congregation strongly into the service. We in the congregation welcome the child into our community.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »

    I know people will think this is an exaggeration but I am really concerned about the potential influence of the tendrils of the alt-right within the evangelical wing of the C of E, particularly given the current combination of church leadership and govt leadership

    I have mentioned the trouble affecting my friend. This was a part of it, spotting a couple of people with strong leanings in that direction, including an intention to be ordained, and passing the information on as a matter of concern, in one case with the clearly stated question "What is the CofE doing to prevent the entry of people with these opinions into the church?" This issue has been dealt with by completely ignoring it. At first by stating that an event did not happen, and subsequently by not mentioning it at all. One of the right wing people is recorded online as saying that those who do not share his opinions are "traitors" and churches should be fighting to expel them.

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Penny S wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »

    I know people will think this is an exaggeration but I am really concerned about the potential influence of the tendrils of the alt-right within the evangelical wing of the C of E, particularly given the current combination of church leadership and govt leadership

    I have mentioned the trouble affecting my friend. This was a part of it, spotting a couple of people with strong leanings in that direction, including an intention to be ordained, and passing the information on as a matter of concern, in one case with the clearly stated question "What is the CofE doing to prevent the entry of people with these opinions into the church?" This issue has been dealt with by completely ignoring it. At first by stating that an event did not happen, and subsequently by not mentioning it at all. One of the right wing people is recorded online as saying that those who do not share his opinions are "traitors" and churches should be fighting to expel them.

    I am concerned but sadly not surprised. I think part of the problem is that people think that extreme views are going to be held by people who are turning up in a white sheet ready to burn a cross on a lawn; in reality, the banality of evil means they seem completely ordinary until you dig deeper. So many of these churches with deeply unpleasant and frankly unhinged views have what seems like a very welcoming and friendly exterior. Unfortunately society at large is becoming more reactionary too - public approval of LGBTQ+ rights has fallen, and hate crimes have increased (even accounting for increased recording of crime).
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Penny S wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »

    I know people will think this is an exaggeration but I am really concerned about the potential influence of the tendrils of the alt-right within the evangelical wing of the C of E, particularly given the current combination of church leadership and govt leadership

    I have mentioned the trouble affecting my friend. This was a part of it, spotting a couple of people with strong leanings in that direction, including an intention to be ordained, and passing the information on as a matter of concern, in one case with the clearly stated question "What is the CofE doing to prevent the entry of people with these opinions into the church?" This issue has been dealt with by completely ignoring it. At first by stating that an event did not happen, and subsequently by not mentioning it at all. One of the right wing people is recorded online as saying that those who do not share his opinions are "traitors" and churches should be fighting to expel them.

    I am concerned but sadly not surprised. I think part of the problem is that people think that extreme views are going to be held by people who are turning up in a white sheet ready to burn a cross on a lawn; in reality, the banality of evil means they seem completely ordinary until you dig deeper. So many of these churches with deeply unpleasant and frankly unhinged views have what seems like a very welcoming and friendly exterior. Unfortunately society at large is becoming more reactionary too - public approval of LGBTQ+ rights has fallen, and hate crimes have increased (even accounting for increased recording of crime).

    The thought of 10000 new churches steeped in *the banality of evil* is scary, to say the least, but I rather suspect that very few of them will *succeed*, at least in the way the C of E currently understands that word.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Well yes, although that's what I thought about Harbour Church in Portsmouth (I am curious as to what the diocese thinks of them - Portsmouth dio is Not a Winchester). In general though, relying on transient populations like students and often young professionals (who can and will move fairly frequently for work) is foolish. Unfortunately, the parishes full of people on the margins need actual work and not just some worship songs and packed lunches, which is too much like hard work. It's also work that people will expect to be paid for - another issue is that younger people tend to be more willing to be persuaded to work for free, so they're also a convenient source of free labour. Teens in these churches are Encouraged into youth work early on.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    With double apologies to Mao, let ten thousand flowers never germinate. @KarlLB, wish there was a like button, just about all your posts would get my like. J McG married me (and tut wife, lest it be thought that he's flipped) 4 years before he wrote that.
  • A small observation re the transient nature of congregations made up of Bright Young Things students/young professionals.

    Yes, they move away quite soon, but presumably there are fresh victims replacements to be had?
  • Pomona wrote: »
    In general though, relying on transient populations like students and often young professionals (who can and will move fairly frequently for work) is foolish.

    That depends on how whether or not there's a constant population of students and young professionals in a given area -- the flip side of this is that often the reason such people are in those kinds of churches is because they don't get much of a welcome anywhere else. Ultimately they are also another population that needs to be reached.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    In general though, relying on transient populations like students and often young professionals (who can and will move fairly frequently for work) is foolish.

    That depends on how whether or not there's a constant population of students and young professionals in a given area -- the flip side of this is that often the reason such people are in those kinds of churches is because they don't get much of a welcome anywhere else. Ultimately they are also another population that needs to be reached.

    True, though I guess most university towns now have a fair amount of students as a permanent feature (numbers-wise) at any one time.

    None of the local Unis are actually in Our Place's parish, but out of the population of around 6000, it's reckoned that 2000 are students. Many are from overseas, and of other faiths (Moslems and Hindus, mostly). About 25% of the houses around the church are now accommodating students, at obscene rental prices... :grimace:

    The local charismatic-evo parish (in which the universities actually are) does try to cater for students, without huge success*, whilst we ourselves usually have a few who prefer a more formal liturgy. I hope we make them welcome!

    (*When I enquired, out of interest nosiness a while back, they were getting maybe a dozen or so students to their informal Sunday evening service).
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    In general though, relying on transient populations like students and often young professionals (who can and will move fairly frequently for work) is foolish.

    That depends on how whether or not there's a constant population of students and young professionals in a given area -- the flip side of this is that often the reason such people are in those kinds of churches is because they don't get much of a welcome anywhere else. Ultimately they are also another population that needs to be reached.

    I don't necessarily disagree - certainly other churches need to do better at reaching them - but if those kinds of churches are the ones getting all the money and resources then perhaps it's not actually that simple? Other churches need to do better at reaching those groups but that means they need support from their diocese and the wider church in order to do that. It's not because students and young professionals are inherently more attracted to HTB type places, but that is the ideological stance driving these church plants.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    Also again, bear in mind the types of students and young professionals who are *not* being reached out to. Sorry to be blunt but these people (McGinley et al) want attractive wealthy white cishets to come and get married and have babies and get more bums on seats and money in the bank for these churches. As someone who is very much not part of that group, but has been a young person/student in this type of church.....it's very lonely.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Unfortunately society at large is becoming more reactionary too - public approval of LGBTQ+ rights has fallen, and hate crimes have increased (even accounting for increased recording of crime).

    Is this actually "society becoming more reactionary"?

    When the headline story was gay marriage, or a collection of the rather petty-seeming businessfolk who didn't want to sell flowers, cakes, photographs, or whatever else to a gay couple, it's easy for someone to take the line "I'm not gay, and I think it's icky, but it's not actually bothering me, so why shouldn't they get married".

    Today's headlines are about things like trans women competing in women's sports, and swinging penes in women's changing rooms. Those are, by their nature, a bit more confrontational. A gay couple getting married really doesn't affect anyone outside the couple. There's no cost to supporting them. A trans woman competing against cis women in an athletic contest is a potential cost, though: she might beat them. And it's reasonable to argue "she's a woman - it's OK if she beats other women", but it's also reasonable to ask other questions (like "why do we have separate women's sports - what are we trying to achieve, and is "women" the right grouping of people to achieve that?")

    So I'm not sure that society is becoming more reactionary - it seems to me that the current headline issues are ones on which it's harder to take a neutral "this doesn't affect me" position.
  • It's been said many times on these boards that, for all the hype about *new, vibrant, exciting, dynamic Stuff*, churches are far better off doing what they're good at in as faithful and welcoming a way as possible.

    Some of these *resources* (if we're talking about £££s) would be very welcome at Our Place, to provide an accessible WC and a servery within the main church, apart from the hall - which is in use every weekday by a pre-school nursery. We're not looking at an enormous sum, but it is outside the immediate reach of a small congregation.

    However, providing such modest extra facilities would enable us to open up the building to such things as *Places of Welcome*, where anyone who wanted could come in for a free tea or coffee, a sit-down, a chat, perhaps consultation with Citizens' Advice, local councillors, or the Food Bank staff. Yes, we have a local Community Centre, but their cafe is likely to remain closed post-pandemic, and it was there that so many pastoral contacts and conversations have taken place in the past.

    A neighbouring church - threatened with closure - raised a considerable sum a few years ago to install just such facilities within their great Victorian barn, and used them for a regular Wednesday afternoon *Tea and Coffee (two) Hours*. Without overt evangelism or proselytising, they added a fair number to their Sunday congregation, including 6 or 7 confirmands (all of whom were senior citizens!).

    There must be any number of churches in similar situations, where the application of resources (seemingly unlimited in availability) could at least assist them in their day-to-day witness, and with no Shiny New Toys to play with until they get broken...

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Pomona wrote: »
    Unfortunately society at large is becoming more reactionary too - public approval of LGBTQ+ rights has fallen, and hate crimes have increased (even accounting for increased recording of crime).

    Is this actually "society becoming more reactionary"?

    When the headline story was gay marriage, or a collection of the rather petty-seeming businessfolk who didn't want to sell flowers, cakes, photographs, or whatever else to a gay couple, it's easy for someone to take the line "I'm not gay, and I think it's icky, but it's not actually bothering me, so why shouldn't they get married".

    Today's headlines are about things like trans women competing in women's sports, and swinging penes in women's changing rooms. Those are, by their nature, a bit more confrontational. A gay couple getting married really doesn't affect anyone outside the couple. There's no cost to supporting them. A trans woman competing against cis women in an athletic contest is a potential cost, though: she might beat them. And it's reasonable to argue "she's a woman - it's OK if she beats other women", but it's also reasonable to ask other questions (like "why do we have separate women's sports - what are we trying to achieve, and is "women" the right grouping of people to achieve that?")

    So I'm not sure that society is becoming more reactionary - it seems to me that the current headline issues are ones on which it's harder to take a neutral "this doesn't affect me" position.

    An increase in hate crimes is pretty reactionary? I said an increase in hate crimes, not that these things are merely being debated. But in any case, that reduction in support includes a reduction in support for gay marriage and gay relationships. There's also the issue of things like people feeling emboldened by the government in giving out racist abuse, cf the govt refusing to condemn those booing the England team taking the knee and the horrific racist abuse aimed at the Black members of the team.

    relevant Guardian article on support for gay relationships
  • But the whole basis of the success of HTB is that it is a student church and has been for 40 odd years to my knowledge. HTB gears up for work with students in term time and is quite quiet without lots of their normal provision in the university holidays, having visited on Sunday in mid-September as they were gearing up for term time.

    It sits in the science and education area of South Kensington where Imperial College main campus is housed, with a number of halls of residence backing on to HTB (17 690 students, now including the hospitals and old Queen Elizabeth College site, so not all are in that area), the Royal College of Music (750), Royal College of Art (1 420), Royal College of Organists, Royal Albert Hall, Victoria and Albert Museum, Science and Geology Museums (which are linked), the Institut Français and until the early 2000s the Lucie Clayton School of Modelling. I suspect that it has 10,000 students to draw on, plus academic staff, plus those it draws in as a named and recognised church.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    It's been said many times on these boards that, for all the hype about *new, vibrant, exciting, dynamic Stuff*, churches are far better off doing what they're good at in as faithful and welcoming a way as possible.

    Some of these *resources* (if we're talking about £££s) would be very welcome at Our Place, to provide an accessible WC and a servery within the main church, apart from the hall - which is in use every weekday by a pre-school nursery. We're not looking at an enormous sum, but it is outside the immediate reach of a small congregation.

    However, providing such modest extra facilities would enable us to open up the building to such things as *Places of Welcome*, where anyone who wanted could come in for a free tea or coffee, a sit-down, a chat, perhaps consultation with Citizens' Advice, local councillors, or the Food Bank staff. Yes, we have a local Community Centre, but their cafe is likely to remain closed post-pandemic, and it was there that so many pastoral contacts and conversations have taken place in the past.

    A neighbouring church - threatened with closure - raised a considerable sum a few years ago to install just such facilities within their great Victorian barn, and used them for a regular Wednesday afternoon *Tea and Coffee (two) Hours*. Without overt evangelism or proselytising, they added a fair number to their Sunday congregation, including 6 or 7 confirmands (all of whom were senior citizens!).

    There must be any number of churches in similar situations, where the application of resources (seemingly unlimited in availability) could at least assist them in their day-to-day witness, and with no Shiny New Toys to play with until they get broken...

    Absolutely agree - although it frequently goes too far when someone has a bright idea and does something just because it worked somewhere else.

    Pet hate of mine, removal of pews to make a community space without asking the community.*

    As recently carried out in a nearby village of about 1500 people which also boasts a village hall, and primary school hall. What is the church adding there, given that neither of the others are closing? I lived within sight of that village for nearly a decade and lets just say that the occasions that village had a requirement for three simultaneous indoor events for several hundred people were, er, non-frequent.

    *OTOH my own last village didn't have a village hall, so taking out some pews made sense.
    At least until the money was found three years later to build a village hall....
  • My parents tried very hard to persuade people in their tiny village (population 120 odd, including outlying farms) that there was no need for a village hall when the church could be set up to be used for most of the social events required. Because it's very hard to find the upkeep for both in a community of that size.
  • It's been said many times on these boards that, for all the hype about *new, vibrant, exciting, dynamic Stuff*, churches are far better off doing what they're good at in as faithful and welcoming a way as possible.

    Some of these *resources* (if we're talking about £££s) would be very welcome at Our Place, to provide an accessible WC and a servery within the main church, apart from the hall - which is in use every weekday by a pre-school nursery. We're not looking at an enormous sum, but it is outside the immediate reach of a small congregation.

    However, providing such modest extra facilities would enable us to open up the building to such things as *Places of Welcome*, where anyone who wanted could come in for a free tea or coffee, a sit-down, a chat, perhaps consultation with Citizens' Advice, local councillors, or the Food Bank staff. Yes, we have a local Community Centre, but their cafe is likely to remain closed post-pandemic, and it was there that so many pastoral contacts and conversations have taken place in the past.

    A neighbouring church - threatened with closure - raised a considerable sum a few years ago to install just such facilities within their great Victorian barn, and used them for a regular Wednesday afternoon *Tea and Coffee (two) Hours*. Without overt evangelism or proselytising, they added a fair number to their Sunday congregation, including 6 or 7 confirmands (all of whom were senior citizens!).

    There must be any number of churches in similar situations, where the application of resources (seemingly unlimited in availability) could at least assist them in their day-to-day witness, and with no Shiny New Toys to play with until they get broken...

    Absolutely agree - although it frequently goes too far when someone has a bright idea and does something just because it worked somewhere else.

    Pet hate of mine, removal of pews to make a community space without asking the community.*

    As recently carried out in a nearby village of about 1500 people which also boasts a village hall, and primary school hall. What is the church adding there, given that neither of the others are closing? I lived within sight of that village for nearly a decade and lets just say that the occasions that village had a requirement for three simultaneous indoor events for several hundred people were, er, non-frequent.

    *OTOH my own last village didn't have a village hall, so taking out some pews made sense.
    At least until the money was found three years later to build a village hall....

    Yes - just because St Tenacious Up-The-Road does something isn't a guarantee that it'll work at St Faithful In-The-Backstreets, although it is becoming more-and-more evident that Our Place does need the modest alterations I posited (no removal of pews would be involved!).

    At St Tenacious, they did need to take out a few pews, but this was relatively easy as the said pews weren't fixed to the floor. The adjacent hall was, like that at Our Place, not available during the week, being used by another pre-school nursery.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited July 2021
    Pomona wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    In general though, relying on transient populations like students and often young professionals (who can and will move fairly frequently for work) is foolish.

    That depends on how whether or not there's a constant population of students and young professionals in a given area -- the flip side of this is that often the reason such people are in those kinds of churches is because they don't get much of a welcome anywhere else. Ultimately they are also another population that needs to be reached.

    I don't necessarily disagree - certainly other churches need to do better at reaching them - but if those kinds of churches are the ones getting all the money and resources then perhaps it's not actually that simple?

    I think there's a danger of being a little too holy here, specifically because the ship tends to attract large number of people from traditions outside evangelicalism. The current situation is a product of the fact that some churches grew and others didn't, there's a case for redistribution at the edges, but I'm not sure that either large numbers of people are accidentally or deliberately in churches they actively like less than the alternative, or that there are large numbers of the unchurched that would be in church if only they had happened on a church of the right tradition.

    And those are the considerations when addressing these issues strategically (as opposed to locally).
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    I believe that pews can cause issues for wheelchair accessibility - while complete removal without consulting the community is not good, I have seen some very nasty reactions from members of congregations to the idea of rearranging pews (not even wholesale removal) to provide more space for wheelchairs (and said pews were very ordinary Edwardian pews, no historical or artistic significance, and no dedications to individuals). Unfortunately preferring pews to disabled people is more common a phenomenon than you might think, although it must be said that I've experienced this only in evangelical churches.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Devils advocate here, why should the church do citizens advice / food bank / helping the elderly / whatever rather than members of the church participating in the secular organisations that already provide these services ? Why not support and extend those ?
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    Possibly provision of spaces where not available elsewhere.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Penny S wrote: »
    Possibly provision of spaces where not available elsewhere.

    And sorry if this was already the intended meaning of 'spaces', but 9 times out of 10 it's a case of nowhere else having the physical space for it. It's not unusual for the parish church hall to be the only public indoor space in a village since so many libraries have been closed.
  • Devils advocate here, why should the church do citizens advice / food bank / helping the elderly / whatever rather than members of the church participating in the secular organisations that already provide these services ? Why not support and extend those ?

    Many members do already support such organisations, but it's helpful sometimes to provide easier access to them e.g. in the church (or hall) on a regular basis, perhaps as part of another event (Community Cafe or whatever).
    Pomona wrote: »
    Penny S wrote: »
    Possibly provision of spaces where not available elsewhere.

    And sorry if this was already the intended meaning of 'spaces', but 9 times out of 10 it's a case of nowhere else having the physical space for it. It's not unusual for the parish church hall to be the only public indoor space in a village since so many libraries have been closed.

    This, as well.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    I have seen some very nasty reactions from members of congregations to the idea of rearranging pews (not even wholesale removal) to provide more space for wheelchairs (and said pews were very ordinary Edwardian pews, no historical or artistic significance, and no dedications to individuals).

    I think pews are part of a lot of people's cultural beliefs about what churches should look like, and I don't think they need to be deemed "significant" by some form of authority to have that. Part of having a space sanctified for worship is that it should look as though it's set aside for worship, and pews help with that.

    Our place has modern pews - doubtless because of this cultural influence - with easily accessible spots at the ends of pews where wheelchairs can, and do, go. If a dozen wheelchair-users showed up one Sunday, we'd be in a bit of trouble - we'd probably have to turn the speakers on and have some people sitting in the narthex. But I don't think we've ever had more than three people in wheelchairs at once (plus one lady who is taken to a pew in a wheelchair, but then sits in a pew).
    Devils advocate here, why should the church do citizens advice / food bank / helping the elderly / whatever rather than members of the church participating in the secular organisations that already provide these services ? Why not support and extend those ?

    Well, I'd think that depends on what you're doing, and whether it's true that there are already "secular organizations providing those services". If what you're proposing to do is offer a space where people can drop in for a coffee and a chat, and there is no such facility in your village / area at the moment, then why shouldn't the church offer it? And why does it need to be part of a larger organization?
  • Pews can be a very emotive issue, no?

    Ours are reasonably comfortable, and can, in fact, be moved about if necessary (though they're very heavy). Fortunately, the north and south aisles are pew-free, as is the west end of the nave, so there is plenty of room to move about. I use a wheelchair myself when in the church, though I am able to walk about a bit if I have to!

    My point was (I think) that in some cases it might be possible, and desirable, to improve the facilities of a church without too much difficulty, providing that resources (£££s and maybe expertise) are made available.
    Devils advocate here, why should the church do citizens advice / food bank / helping the elderly / whatever rather than members of the church participating in the secular organisations that already provide these services ? Why not support and extend those ?

    Well, I'd think that depends on what you're doing, and whether it's true that there are already "secular organizations providing those services". If what you're proposing to do is offer a space where people can drop in for a coffee and a chat, and there is no such facility in your village / area at the moment, then why shouldn't the church offer it? And why does it need to be part of a larger organization?

    Quite, and it's this sort of thinking which is behind the *Places of Welcome* initiative, now operating in many churches. I entirely agree that duplicating existing facilities, rather than utilising them. is not a good idea.

  • Pomona wrote: »
    I believe that pews can cause issues for wheelchair accessibility - while complete removal without consulting the community is not good, I have seen some very nasty reactions from members of congregations to the idea of rearranging pews (not even wholesale removal) to provide more space for wheelchairs (and said pews were very ordinary Edwardian pews, no historical or artistic significance, and no dedications to individuals). Unfortunately preferring pews to disabled people is more common a phenomenon than you might think, although it must be said that I've experienced this only in evangelical churches.

    Yes agree - I'm not advocating a clinging to pews for the sake of it, was more an aside about the unthinking removal of pews for the sake of it IYSWIM. The vicar in said village fought a very nasty running battle with the village to get his reordering through, because he was determined to do it to make this community space, and both the congregation *and the rest of the village* were asking 'who are you doing this for? We've got a lot of space in this community.'
  • Whereas in my previous village (neighbour of the above) we took out half the pews pretty much on the nod from all in the community, because we didn't have a village hall, and some space, a small kitchen, and a toilet were a demonstrable benefit.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    Pomona wrote: »
    I have seen some very nasty reactions from members of congregations to the idea of rearranging pews (not even wholesale removal) to provide more space for wheelchairs (and said pews were very ordinary Edwardian pews, no historical or artistic significance, and no dedications to individuals).

    I think pews are part of a lot of people's cultural beliefs about what churches should look like, and I don't think they need to be deemed "significant" by some form of authority to have that. Part of having a space sanctified for worship is that it should look as though it's set aside for worship, and pews help with that.

    Our place has modern pews - doubtless because of this cultural influence - with easily accessible spots at the ends of pews where wheelchairs can, and do, go. If a dozen wheelchair-users showed up one Sunday, we'd be in a bit of trouble - we'd probably have to turn the speakers on and have some people sitting in the narthex. But I don't think we've ever had more than three people in wheelchairs at once (plus one lady who is taken to a pew in a wheelchair, but then sits in a pew).

    In the situation in question, the pews were being moved (some being removed, but only a few - the church in this instance is a large suburban one) in order to provide those wheelchair spaces at the ends and also to widen the aisle a bit. I'm not saying that people need an 'official' reason to like pews, it's just that in this situation people were objecting to 'their' pew being moved when it wasn't a family pew or anything, it's just where these people usually sat. It was, by the way, a church with several wheelchair and mobility scooter users in the regular congregation - the wheelchair spaces would be used every week so there needed to be additional ones provided. There were other situations where a newcomer was made very upset and actually left never to return because of some unpleasant comments made towards them by the person (embarrassingly enough this was a different person!) who felt they were sitting in 'their place' (again not a family pew or anything). It's OK to like pews and prefer them to other types of seating, but treating pews as being more important than people is not exactly in keeping with the Gospel, is it?

  • I think pews are part of a lot of people's cultural beliefs about what churches should look like, and I don't think they need to be deemed "significant" by some form of authority to have that. Part of having a space sanctified for worship is that it should look as though it's set aside for worship, and pews help with that.

    Including English Heritage and the Victorian Society: quoth the man from English Heritage, while considering listing the local church,
    "You'll have to reinstall the original pews, of course."
    "But there were no original pews, this church has always had rows of chairs. The original chairs have been replaced as they fell to bits over the last century. See, here are the plans, and early photos."

    He took some convincing. It is listed Grade II*.

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    Unfortunately preferring pews to disabled people is more common a phenomenon than you might think, although it must be said that I've experienced this only in evangelical churches.

    Gosh in my experience most evangelical churches would rip out a pew as soon as look at one...
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    edited July 2021
    Pomona wrote: »
    Unfortunately preferring pews to disabled people is more common a phenomenon than you might think, although it must be said that I've experienced this only in evangelical churches.

    Gosh in my experience most evangelical churches would rip out a pew as soon as look at one...

    The suburban Edwardian church I mentioned in reply to Leorning is conservative evangelical Anglican, not charismatic evangelical. It obviously varies but conservative evangelicals tend to support more conservative aesthetics and worship styles (in the sense of pews, BCP usage, choir dress etc). Prayer Book Evangelicals are rare but in that geographical area they are not that unusual.

    The other evangelical churches in question are more the liberalish type but are in listed buildings where they have no choice.
  • As for why churches might run similar helping operations to those that exist with local secular organizations, instead of simply pitching in--

    At least in the U.S. it is common for the local secular organization to be either a) overwhelmed b) under-resourced or c) operating by overly strict standards (such as income cut-off levels) that leave a bunch of people in the lurch. That last c) is often the result of a) and b), by the way--not a policy choice made because it was considered good in itself.

    When these problems exist, the church can step in and pick up some of the unhandled need.
Sign In or Register to comment.