Sometimes, instead of the different people taking turns reading a few verses at a time until the whole reading has been done, the reading is read in English (or whatever language is understood by all) and then the passage is read again by a variety of readers standing around or within the congregation simultaneously. It is amazing how easily you hear the languages that you do speak as they are read in the midst of many languages.
Our practice is that the reading is started in English, and then when v4 is being read, others in the congregation start to read in the language they have chosen.
Sometimes, instead of the different people taking turns reading a few verses at a time until the whole reading has been done, the reading is read in English (or whatever language is understood by all) and then the passage is read again by a variety of readers standing around or within the congregation simultaneously. It is amazing how easily you hear the languages that you do speak as they are read in the midst of many languages.
Our practice is that the reading is started in English, and then when v4 is being read, others in the congregation start to read in the language they have chosen.
Yes, that's how I describe it. The vicar starts reading in English and then members of the congregation join in speaking the same passage in other languages/dialects. It ends as it starts with only a single speaker.
Ours usually ends with a single reader, given that the passage takes longer to red in some languages than others. Quit moving in a way as the various readers finish, down to 2 and then the last. Then some silence.
I've never heard of this way of doing the Pentecost reading before. Is it mainly an English or British Isles thing? What denominations do it? I'm assuming the C of E, at least in some parishes. What kind of churchmanship-style church would you find it in (broad church, evangelical (conservative or open), Affirming Catholic, middle-of-the-road, etc?). I'm assuming you wouldn't find it in a Forward-in-Faith parish .
Strange! Perhaps it's just because none of the higher church congregations I've been in have had many people who know other languages? Also none would have that level of congregation participation. They have all skewed older, white, and British. I think I may have experienced something like this at an SCM conference once but nowhere else.
Ours usually ends with a single reader, given that the passage takes longer to red in some languages than others. Quit moving in a way as the various readers finish, down to 2 and then the last. Then some silence.
On another subject....how rare is it for a church to have only enclosed box pews? As in, ALL of the pews are enclosed? Is it likely that they are listed or otherwise unchangeable? I ask because I accidentally went to such a church this morning. The service was unfortunately Not Great, but rather more pressing is the fact that the pew situation is not mentioned on the website and so I was unprepared for it. I have PTSD and it was unfortunately a really distressing situation feeling like I was trapped in a pew.
Together with the not great reaction to me needing a disabled toilet before the start of the service (I had asked a greeter where the toilets were, she showed me and I said 'ah yes the disabled toilet is here' - and then she tried to persuade me into going into the ladies, which was mortifying)....I walked out during a hymn about 20 minutes in, and I need to email the priest in charge about why that happened. But I also appreciate that the various heritage bodies are nightmares for churches with historic features and wish to be sensitive to that. How do I impress upon the church (evangelical, seems pretty moderately so and certainly seeker-focused) that I really do appreciate the bind they may be in, but that I as a person with an unseen disability felt incredibly unwelcome and like I had to explain myself to everyone as to why I was so unhappy in the service and why I needed a disabled toilet etc? Goodness knows how a wheelchair user manages - are they just shoved to the side?
An entire suite of enclosed box pews would be pretty rare and quite likely result in the church being Grade 1 listed. Which would mean there would be as good as zero prospect of it being changed, even on disability access grounds. It would be almost comparable to having your ceiling that of the Sistine Chapel.
I know of one church where the pews are not in boxes, but where there are huge "posts" at the end of each pew along the center aisle that are so tall that they block half or more of your view of the chancel. I found this very upsetting, because I like to see what the altar party and choir are doing at different points in the service. Was there any tradition ever of making pews like this and, if so, why?
I know of three churches with box pews: Ravenstonedale in Cumbria, Whitby, and St Peter’s Church in Ham, Richmond. All are C18 or earlier. They would be good for people who are intimidated by large open spaces, but bad for those for whom enclosed spaces cause anxiety.
As for toilets, if the toilet which is disabled accessible is marked ‘Women’ or ‘Ladies’ then new signage is called for. That ought to be easy enough. New facilities may be more difficult. The costs for that in a listed building can easily run into £20,000-£30,000 or more, and many churches don’t have the resources for that.
St Mary's, Whitby is Grade 1 listed. It's not accessible, but as it's up 199 steps from the town or a long drive round getting there isn't all that accessible either.
Sorry Bro James, I'm confused - this was a standard unisex accessible toilet, and the greeter was trying to persuade me into the standard non-accessible women's toilet. The obvious implication was that I shouldn't be using the disabled toilet because I don't 'look' disabled (I'm also not a woman but that's another issue). There was btw nobody else there - it's not like there was a wheelchair user waiting or anything.
The main issue was there being no warning on the church website - if I had known about the pews I could have gone somewhere else rather than having to leave 20 minutes in. It's as necessary as information about hearing loops.
So buildings being more important than disabled people strikes again. Sigh. (Not aimed at you Enoch just The System™️)
No. Other churches are available. Not everything can be made accessible to disabled people and nor should it when doing so would detract from the experience of the non or differently disabled.
So buildings being more important than disabled people strikes again. Sigh. (Not aimed at you Enoch just The System™️)
No. Other churches are available. Not everything can be made accessible to disabled people and nor should it when doing so would detract from the experience of the non or differently disabled.
Maybe replace 'disabled person' with 'black person' or 'gay person' and think about how that sounds. Maybe think again about how 'other churches are available' sounds in that context. 'Our church isn't for Your Kind' is the polar opposite of what a church is for. Worth pointing out that discriminating against someone for their disability is also illegal in the UK at least (if you were American....well that may explain this kind of attitude).
The point is that listed buildings being able to get out of following UK legislation on accessible buildings is bad enough; when it's a church, somewhere everyone should feel welcome, that is appalling. Disabled people being able to sit in a pew or have space for a wheelchair should not be a huge ask. And this sort of attitude is why churches are dying.
Disabled people being able to sit in a pew or have space for a wheelchair should not be a huge ask. And this sort of attitude is why churches are dying.
Basically I agree. In our setting, there are three main obstacles: the Victorian Society; the strong feelings people in and outside the church have for ‘proper’ church with pews ; and the cost in excess of £25,000 to remove the existing pews and replace them with chairs. (I have fantasies about taking a bulldozer into church one night and destroying the existing pews beyond repair. If you ever hear of a church where that has happened, it wasn’t me)
[
Maybe replace 'disabled person' with 'black person' or 'gay person' and think about how that sounds. Maybe think again about how 'other churches are available' sounds in that context. 'Our church isn't for Your Kind' is the polar opposite of what a church is for. Worth pointing out that discriminating against someone for their disability is also illegal in the UK at least (if you were American....well that may explain this kind of attitude).
The point is that listed buildings being able to get out of following UK legislation on accessible buildings is bad enough; when it's a church, somewhere everyone should feel welcome, that is appalling. Disabled people being able to sit in a pew or have space for a wheelchair should not be a huge ask. And this sort of attitude is why churches are dying.
There isn't a comparison between a black or a gay person who needs no special access or facilities and someone who is disabled and does need special access and facilities.
The point is that creating the access and facilities is, in some cases, deemed to be damaging to the historic fabric of the church or other building.
The point is that creating the access and facilities is, in some cases, deemed to be damaging to the historic fabric of the church or other building.
True. But from a Christian perspective, denying access to a church is damaging to and contrary to the purpose of the building and arguably to the Gospel itself.
I get the desire to preserve the historic fabric of buildings, including churches. But if the result is that certain people are excluded because, say, room can't be made for wheelchairs because of the historic pews, then frankly the building doesn't need to be a functioning church anymore.
The point is that creating the access and facilities is, in some cases, deemed to be damaging to the historic fabric of the church or other building.
True. But from a Christian perspective, denying access to a church is damaging to and contrary to the purpose of the building and arguably to the Gospel itself.
I get the desire to preserve the historic fabric of buildings, including churches. But if the result is that certain people are excluded because, say, room can't be made for wheelchairs because of the historic pews, then frankly the building doesn't need to be a functioning church anymore.
The trouble is that The Church and churches have, through patronage of architecture and art, become something that is valued by the secular world.
I take your point that the degree to which a "work of art/architecture" can still function as a church is complicated.
On another subject....how rare is it for a church to have only enclosed box pews? As in, ALL of the pews are enclosed?
I've been in a couple where I haven't noticed anything other than box pews - which is not to say that there weren't wheelchair spaces and more accessible seats somewhere, just that I didn't notice them.
And I agree with you - despite the fact that on aesthetic grounds I would prefer to keep all the traditional pews, aesthetics can't be allowed to trump functionality, and some people need a different provision. So I'd replace a few of them.
Together with the not great reaction to me needing a disabled toilet before the start of the service (I had asked a greeter where the toilets were, she showed me and I said 'ah yes the disabled toilet is here' - and then she tried to persuade me into going into the ladies, which was mortifying)....
Goodness! What kind of a person tries to engage a stranger in conversation about their toilet requirements? What has England come to?
It's sadly all too common nowadays especially with regards to accessible toilets.
I've made it clear that I have every sympathy with churches with listed buildings that they cannot change easily. I also have no problem with a church wanting to be attractive or preserve historic features. But a whole suite of box pews and the impact on accessibility that will have really needs highlighting on the church website. The suggestion that it's somehow disabled people's fault for wanting to be able to attend a church is not kind or helpful. We didn't choose to be disabled and we shouldn't be penalised for that, and definitely not by churches who are supposed to welcome and include us.
The reality is that in the days when box pews were the norm in many churches, disabled people who could not use them would just not be able to attend at all, and I am sure nobody wants a return to those days. Churches are there to be living worshipping communities, not museums. The response to needing an accessible toilet only adds to the impression that the church has just not thought about accessibility at all.
So buildings being more important than disabled people strikes again. Sigh. (Not aimed at you Enoch just The System™️)
No. Other churches are available. Not everything can be made accessible to disabled people and nor should it when doing so would detract from the experience of the non or differently disabled.
Perhaps you should explain what you mean by the experience of the non or differently disabled. If it's aesthetics, that should take a lower priority than either limiting or perhaps even barring access to disabled people. If it's going to cost $100,000 in a church barely able to pay a clergyman for 3 days a week, then you have to make some difficult decisions in consultation with local representative groups.
Perhaps you should explain what you mean by the experience of the non or differently disabled. If it's aesthetics, that should take a lower priority than either limiting or perhaps even barring access to disabled people. If it's going to cost $100,000 in a church barely able to pay a clergyman for 3 days a week, then you have to make some difficult decisions in consultation with local representative groups.
Yes, I do mean the aesthetic appreciation of the non or differently disabled. Though simply calling it "aesthetic appreciation" rather diminishes the experience of beauty and history.
There's also the issue of protecting historic items from damage. For example, the National Trust sometimes limits the amount of light in a room to protect fabrics from fading. I'm sure those with poor eyesight miss out but to light those items properly would mean they will eventually not be there for anyone to see. Equally, I'm sure many people with physical disabilities would love to get up mountains but providing the means to do so would significantly degrade the experience for everyone else. The same applies to me: I'm 58 and can no longer do all the things I could 30 years ago. Do I expect the world to change to allow me to do them? No, of course not.
Not for me, they're not, and may God forgive you for being so bloody dismissive. This isn't Hell, but beware!
I'm not being dismissive. I am saying I have a different value system and it puts considerable emphasis on aesthetic experience and history over making everything accessible for everyone.
The church through its patronage of arts and architecture has created buildings and artefacts with a secular, or worldly, importance way beyond their utility to Christians. The same applies to non-religious buildings of aesthetic or historic importance.
It's possibly worth adding that aesthetic appreciation and a sense of history is the nearest I have to a belief in anything.
There is a fine line to tread between protecting and preserving heritage yet leaving it usable and being hellbent on leaving things as they are to such an extent that they prevent organisations or people being able to use their own building.
Our recent church annexe is a case in point. We needed somewhere Sunday School could meet close enough for them to come into the service - the old hall, reached via an unlit lane without a pavement, is a quarter of a mile from the church - and we needed lavatories. Our requirements were a building that had/did the following
gave us lavatories
a place to make coffee and wash-up
a room large enough to hold 70 people standing up for a post service event
dedicated parish office big enough for a computer, copier/printer, desk that could double-up for a meeting of at least 6 people
dedicated storage for the Sunday School
have separate storage for either Flower Guild stuff or the Music Library
either attached to church or with a covered walkway to keep people dry between the two buildings
energy-efficient so cheap to run
cheap and easy to maintain
Our small parish (population c1100) took just under 6 years to raise the money we thought would be sufficient (c£250,000) and get promises of grants. It took 11 years to get agreement between the local Heritage Conservation Officer and the DAC. In that time the estimated cost of the building went up from £250-280,000 to over £400,000. And the building? Well, this is what we have:
Lavatories YES
Small kitchen YES
Large enough room NO
Parish Office NO
Sunday School storage NO
Flower or Music storage NO
Covered walkway NO
Energy-efficient NO
Cheap/easy maintenance NO
The final cost (without including chairs, tables, etc) came in north of £500,000 and we have a building too small, with a terrible acoustic, no storage, single-glazed, etc. Yes, it is accessible - but then so is the church. In the final analysis it cost us over half a million to get 2 WCs and somewhere to make coffee.
There is a fine line to tread between protecting and preserving heritage yet leaving it usable and being hellbent on leaving things as they are to such an extent that they prevent organisations or people being able to use their own building.
Our recent church annexe is a case in point. We needed somewhere Sunday School could meet close enough for them to come into the service - the old hall, reached via an unlit lane without a pavement, is a quarter of a mile from the church - and we needed lavatories. Our requirements were a building that had/did the following
gave us lavatories
a place to make coffee and wash-up
a room large enough to hold 70 people standing up for a post service event
dedicated parish office big enough for a computer, copier/printer, desk that could double-up for a meeting of at least 6 people
dedicated storage for the Sunday School
have separate storage for either Flower Guild stuff or the Music Library
either attached to church or with a covered walkway to keep people dry between the two buildings
energy-efficient so cheap to run
cheap and easy to maintain
Our small parish (population c1100) took just under 6 years to raise the money we thought would be sufficient (c£250,000) and get promises of grants. It took 11 years to get agreement between the local Heritage Conservation Officer and the DAC. In that time the estimated cost of the building went up from £250-280,000 to over £400,000. And the building? Well, this is what we have:
Lavatories YES
Small kitchen YES
Large enough room NO
Parish Office NO
Sunday School storage NO
Flower or Music storage NO
Covered walkway NO
Energy-efficient NO
Cheap/easy maintenance NO
The final cost (without including chairs, tables, etc) came in north of £500,000 and we have a building too small, with a terrible acoustic, no storage, single-glazed, etc. Yes, it is accessible - but then so is the church. In the final analysis it cost us over half a million to get 2 WCs and somewhere to make coffee.
That's an expensive cup of coffee. I suppose I would question the importance of a Sunday School, though that's partly because I am opposed to all religious instruction* of children.
*Accepting that not all Sunday Schools have religious instruction.
Colin - the idea that churches usually want to teach the children in their church is not in any way unusual or unexpected. Not sure where you are based but in the UK Sunday School usually happens at the same time as church services - children are either with their parents or other guardian in the church service or in Sunday School, so are getting religious instruction either way.
If you don't understand why Christians would value the welfare and wellbeing of people above buildings, or why Christians may want activities and teaching for children, I'm a bit lost I'm afraid.
I would be pretty surprised if that were the case. To be sure, it would be religious instruction from a UU perspective, meaning not dogmatic.
It seems to me that as long as any significant segment of society is religious in any way, religious instruction of children is somewhat unavoidable. The question is whether it is active or passive. Shielding children from religious instruction is itself a passive form of religious instruction, in that it conveys a message about religion and teaches a child that religion doesn't matter and isn't worth learning about.
Yes, the apostles may have known those languages, and yes, it can be a reversal of Babel. For me the miracle is that they went out. It seems that after the resurrection we find the apostles "in a room" -- sometimes locked out of fear, perhaps even more so locked by the fear inside them about what this all means? But the Spirit comes and they go public.
All the more to celebrate IMHO. They didn't keep the news of these mighty acts to themselves, or to their limited group of friends and family. Their fear of the others, be it Jews or Roman authorities, is overcome by the fire and wind of the Spirit. Or if not overcome, at least they still go out despite that fear inside them, but openly speaking the words of God's inclusive love.
I checked on wiki, which may not be entirely accurate:
"A Sunday school is an educational institution, usually (but not always) Christian in character. They were first set up in the 1780s in England to provide education to working children.[1] Today, Sunday school has become the generic name for many different types of religious education pursued and conducted on Sundays by various denominations."
Colin - the idea that churches usually want to teach the children in their church is not in any way unusual or unexpected. Not sure where you are based but in the UK Sunday School usually happens at the same time as church services - children are either with their parents or other guardian in the church service or in Sunday School, so are getting religious instruction either way.
If you don't understand why Christians would value the welfare and wellbeing of people above buildings, or why Christians may want activities and teaching for children, I'm a bit lost I'm afraid.
I'm in the UK and regard all forms of religious instruction for children (including in an atheist/agnostic worldview) as indoctrination. Giving children a general education in the variety and function of religions and beliefs is another matter; it's probably essential to give them an understanding how the world works (or sometimes fails to work). My own education about religion and faith could have been a lot better than it was and led to a massive culture shock when I encountered Christian belief (specifically Creationism) for the first time at age 19. Until then my awareness of Christian faith had been limited to meaningless prayers and carols at school and a couple of funerals of grandparents. Although I am a happy atheist I do have a lingering sense that I have ended up an atheist by default rather than through complete freedom of choice.
Basically, I think everyone should have complete freedom to examine and choose whatever belief is best suited to their needs and that means that no one belief/religion should be allowed to dominate their formative years. I'm also against all forms of proselyting for much the same reasons.
I didn't say that I value buildings above people. I am saying that I value beauty and history above people's convenience.
It seems to me that as long as any significant segment of society is religious in any way, religious instruction of children is somewhat unavoidable. The question is whether it is active or passive. Shielding children from religious instruction is itself a passive form of religious instruction, in that it conveys a message about religion and teaches a child that religion doesn't matter and isn't worth learning about.
Religions are certainly worth learning about. But no child, imo, should be exposed to only one religion or indoctrinated into it. Faiths and beliefs should be presented as a choice from which an individual can choose what best suits them. An a la carte approach rather than table d'hôte.
What most UK people would refer to as Sunday School is a meeting for children of people attending worship during service time. As such it is a mix between religious education class and a child minding service for worshippers.
Sunday School was originally a class run by churches on Sunday afternoon for children who had to work during the week and could not go to school. It taught basic maths, literacy and religious education. Many were run by churches although there were some specialist schools. This morphed by the start of the twentieth century into a Sunday afternoon religious education class for children which was often characterised as the churches entertaining the children while the parents had sex. In the 1960s and 1970s the Family Church Movement(Non-conformist) and the Parish Eucharist Movement(Anglican) concentrated on getting the parents and the children to church on a Sunday morning, thus the move of Sunday Schools to Sunday Morning. It resulted in neither attending instead for a large portion of the population.
This is all UK. The American story is different and has led to Sunday School quite often is an event that includes all religious teaching including that of adults on a Sunday before the main worship service.
What most UK people would refer to as Sunday School is a meeting for children of people attending worship during service time. As such it is a mix between religious education class and a child minding service for worshippers.
Sunday School was originally a class run by churches on Sunday afternoon for children who had to work during the week and could not go to school. It taught basic maths, literacy and religious education. Many were run by churches although there were some specialist schools. This morphed by the start of the twentieth century into a Sunday afternoon religious education class for children which was often characterised as the churches entertaining the children while the parents had sex. In the 1960s and 1970s the Family Church Movement(Non-conformist) and the Parish Eucharist Movement(Anglican) concentrated on getting the parents and the children to church on a Sunday morning, thus the move of Sunday Schools to Sunday Morning. It resulted in neither attending instead for a large portion of the population.
This is all UK. The American story is different and has led to Sunday School quite often is an event that includes all religious teaching including that of adults on a Sunday before the main worship service.
That's my understanding of it too. Oddly enough, I have a very early memory of attending Sunday School and I do have a brother five years younger.
.... I suppose I would question the importance of a Sunday School, though that's partly because I am opposed to all religious instruction* of children.
*Accepting that not all Sunday Schools have religious instruction.
@Colin Smith I accept that's your view, and that you therefore didn't send your children to Sunday School. But Sunday School as it exists today rather than in the early C19 before universal education, is there to instruct children in the Christian faith. Even compared with 50 years ago, the take up now is from parents who themselves believe, rather than from the non-committal looking for a child-minder while they get a bit of nookie.
So, yes, you are an atheist and you don't want your children to receive religious instruction. You don't have to send them. Presumably you didn't. With all due respect, though, it really is none of your business what other people would like their children to receive or what churches would like to provide for them.
@Colin Smith I accept that's your view, and that you therefore didn't send your children to Sunday School. But Sunday School as it exists today rather than in the early C19 before universal education, is there to instruct children in the Christian faith. Even compared with 50 years ago, the take up now is from parents who themselves believe, rather than from the non-committal looking for a child-minder while they get a bit of nookie.
So, yes, you are an atheist and you don't want your children to receive religious instruction. You don't have to send them. Presumably you didn't. With all due respect, though, it really is none of your business what other people would like their children to receive or what churches would like to provide for them.
I do not have any children. I disagree that "it is none of my business what other people would like their children to receive or what churches would like to provide for them". Society as a whole has considerable say in what parents and others are permitted to do to children.
I took pains to include the fact that my own upbringing was too atheist/agnostic/non-religious in character so my complaint is not solely against religious instruction but against all attempts by anyone to indoctrinate or limit an individual's freedom of choice. Any by anyone I include parents and by individual I include children.
Speaking as someone who had a childhood, I believe that no parent has the right to limit or direct their child's education.
Comments
Yes, that's how I describe it. The vicar starts reading in English and then members of the congregation join in speaking the same passage in other languages/dialects. It ends as it starts with only a single speaker.
St Sanity is liberal anglo-catholic - not as much from the rector as it used be but still from the congregation.
I like that idea a lot. Thank you.
Together with the not great reaction to me needing a disabled toilet before the start of the service (I had asked a greeter where the toilets were, she showed me and I said 'ah yes the disabled toilet is here' - and then she tried to persuade me into going into the ladies, which was mortifying)....I walked out during a hymn about 20 minutes in, and I need to email the priest in charge about why that happened. But I also appreciate that the various heritage bodies are nightmares for churches with historic features and wish to be sensitive to that. How do I impress upon the church (evangelical, seems pretty moderately so and certainly seeker-focused) that I really do appreciate the bind they may be in, but that I as a person with an unseen disability felt incredibly unwelcome and like I had to explain myself to everyone as to why I was so unhappy in the service and why I needed a disabled toilet etc? Goodness knows how a wheelchair user manages - are they just shoved to the side?
As for toilets, if the toilet which is disabled accessible is marked ‘Women’ or ‘Ladies’ then new signage is called for. That ought to be easy enough. New facilities may be more difficult. The costs for that in a listed building can easily run into £20,000-£30,000 or more, and many churches don’t have the resources for that.
No. Other churches are available. Not everything can be made accessible to disabled people and nor should it when doing so would detract from the experience of the non or differently disabled.
Maybe replace 'disabled person' with 'black person' or 'gay person' and think about how that sounds. Maybe think again about how 'other churches are available' sounds in that context. 'Our church isn't for Your Kind' is the polar opposite of what a church is for. Worth pointing out that discriminating against someone for their disability is also illegal in the UK at least (if you were American....well that may explain this kind of attitude).
The point is that listed buildings being able to get out of following UK legislation on accessible buildings is bad enough; when it's a church, somewhere everyone should feel welcome, that is appalling. Disabled people being able to sit in a pew or have space for a wheelchair should not be a huge ask. And this sort of attitude is why churches are dying.
There isn't a comparison between a black or a gay person who needs no special access or facilities and someone who is disabled and does need special access and facilities.
The point is that creating the access and facilities is, in some cases, deemed to be damaging to the historic fabric of the church or other building.
I get the desire to preserve the historic fabric of buildings, including churches. But if the result is that certain people are excluded because, say, room can't be made for wheelchairs because of the historic pews, then frankly the building doesn't need to be a functioning church anymore.
The trouble is that The Church and churches have, through patronage of architecture and art, become something that is valued by the secular world.
I take your point that the degree to which a "work of art/architecture" can still function as a church is complicated.
I've been in a couple where I haven't noticed anything other than box pews - which is not to say that there weren't wheelchair spaces and more accessible seats somewhere, just that I didn't notice them.
And I agree with you - despite the fact that on aesthetic grounds I would prefer to keep all the traditional pews, aesthetics can't be allowed to trump functionality, and some people need a different provision. So I'd replace a few of them.
Goodness! What kind of a person tries to engage a stranger in conversation about their toilet requirements? What has England come to?
I've made it clear that I have every sympathy with churches with listed buildings that they cannot change easily. I also have no problem with a church wanting to be attractive or preserve historic features. But a whole suite of box pews and the impact on accessibility that will have really needs highlighting on the church website. The suggestion that it's somehow disabled people's fault for wanting to be able to attend a church is not kind or helpful. We didn't choose to be disabled and we shouldn't be penalised for that, and definitely not by churches who are supposed to welcome and include us.
The reality is that in the days when box pews were the norm in many churches, disabled people who could not use them would just not be able to attend at all, and I am sure nobody wants a return to those days. Churches are there to be living worshipping communities, not museums. The response to needing an accessible toilet only adds to the impression that the church has just not thought about accessibility at all.
Perhaps you should explain what you mean by the experience of the non or differently disabled. If it's aesthetics, that should take a lower priority than either limiting or perhaps even barring access to disabled people. If it's going to cost $100,000 in a church barely able to pay a clergyman for 3 days a week, then you have to make some difficult decisions in consultation with local representative groups.
Yes, I do mean the aesthetic appreciation of the non or differently disabled. Though simply calling it "aesthetic appreciation" rather diminishes the experience of beauty and history.
There's also the issue of protecting historic items from damage. For example, the National Trust sometimes limits the amount of light in a room to protect fabrics from fading. I'm sure those with poor eyesight miss out but to light those items properly would mean they will eventually not be there for anyone to see. Equally, I'm sure many people with physical disabilities would love to get up mountains but providing the means to do so would significantly degrade the experience for everyone else. The same applies to me: I'm 58 and can no longer do all the things I could 30 years ago. Do I expect the world to change to allow me to do them? No, of course not.
As I said, other places of worship are available.
I'm not being dismissive. I am saying I have a different value system and it puts considerable emphasis on aesthetic experience and history over making everything accessible for everyone.
The church through its patronage of arts and architecture has created buildings and artefacts with a secular, or worldly, importance way beyond their utility to Christians. The same applies to non-religious buildings of aesthetic or historic importance.
It's possibly worth adding that aesthetic appreciation and a sense of history is the nearest I have to a belief in anything.
Our recent church annexe is a case in point. We needed somewhere Sunday School could meet close enough for them to come into the service - the old hall, reached via an unlit lane without a pavement, is a quarter of a mile from the church - and we needed lavatories. Our requirements were a building that had/did the following
Our small parish (population c1100) took just under 6 years to raise the money we thought would be sufficient (c£250,000) and get promises of grants. It took 11 years to get agreement between the local Heritage Conservation Officer and the DAC. In that time the estimated cost of the building went up from £250-280,000 to over £400,000. And the building? Well, this is what we have:
Lavatories YES
Small kitchen YES
Large enough room NO
Parish Office NO
Sunday School storage NO
Flower or Music storage NO
Covered walkway NO
Energy-efficient NO
Cheap/easy maintenance NO
The final cost (without including chairs, tables, etc) came in north of £500,000 and we have a building too small, with a terrible acoustic, no storage, single-glazed, etc. Yes, it is accessible - but then so is the church. In the final analysis it cost us over half a million to get 2 WCs and somewhere to make coffee.
That's an expensive cup of coffee. I suppose I would question the importance of a Sunday School, though that's partly because I am opposed to all religious instruction* of children.
*Accepting that not all Sunday Schools have religious instruction.
Now there's a hell discussion waiting to happen.
Colin - the idea that churches usually want to teach the children in their church is not in any way unusual or unexpected. Not sure where you are based but in the UK Sunday School usually happens at the same time as church services - children are either with their parents or other guardian in the church service or in Sunday School, so are getting religious instruction either way.
If you don't understand why Christians would value the welfare and wellbeing of people above buildings, or why Christians may want activities and teaching for children, I'm a bit lost I'm afraid.
It seems to me that as long as any significant segment of society is religious in any way, religious instruction of children is somewhat unavoidable. The question is whether it is active or passive. Shielding children from religious instruction is itself a passive form of religious instruction, in that it conveys a message about religion and teaches a child that religion doesn't matter and isn't worth learning about.
All the more to celebrate IMHO. They didn't keep the news of these mighty acts to themselves, or to their limited group of friends and family. Their fear of the others, be it Jews or Roman authorities, is overcome by the fire and wind of the Spirit. Or if not overcome, at least they still go out despite that fear inside them, but openly speaking the words of God's inclusive love.
And then, all the more for us to ponder.
I checked on wiki, which may not be entirely accurate:
"A Sunday school is an educational institution, usually (but not always) Christian in character. They were first set up in the 1780s in England to provide education to working children.[1] Today, Sunday school has become the generic name for many different types of religious education pursued and conducted on Sundays by various denominations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_school
I'm in the UK and regard all forms of religious instruction for children (including in an atheist/agnostic worldview) as indoctrination. Giving children a general education in the variety and function of religions and beliefs is another matter; it's probably essential to give them an understanding how the world works (or sometimes fails to work). My own education about religion and faith could have been a lot better than it was and led to a massive culture shock when I encountered Christian belief (specifically Creationism) for the first time at age 19. Until then my awareness of Christian faith had been limited to meaningless prayers and carols at school and a couple of funerals of grandparents. Although I am a happy atheist I do have a lingering sense that I have ended up an atheist by default rather than through complete freedom of choice.
Basically, I think everyone should have complete freedom to examine and choose whatever belief is best suited to their needs and that means that no one belief/religion should be allowed to dominate their formative years. I'm also against all forms of proselyting for much the same reasons.
I didn't say that I value buildings above people. I am saying that I value beauty and history above people's convenience.
Religions are certainly worth learning about. But no child, imo, should be exposed to only one religion or indoctrinated into it. Faiths and beliefs should be presented as a choice from which an individual can choose what best suits them. An a la carte approach rather than table d'hôte.
Sunday School was originally a class run by churches on Sunday afternoon for children who had to work during the week and could not go to school. It taught basic maths, literacy and religious education. Many were run by churches although there were some specialist schools. This morphed by the start of the twentieth century into a Sunday afternoon religious education class for children which was often characterised as the churches entertaining the children while the parents had sex. In the 1960s and 1970s the Family Church Movement(Non-conformist) and the Parish Eucharist Movement(Anglican) concentrated on getting the parents and the children to church on a Sunday morning, thus the move of Sunday Schools to Sunday Morning. It resulted in neither attending instead for a large portion of the population.
This is all UK. The American story is different and has led to Sunday School quite often is an event that includes all religious teaching including that of adults on a Sunday before the main worship service.
That's my understanding of it too. Oddly enough, I have a very early memory of attending Sunday School and I do have a brother five years younger.
So, yes, you are an atheist and you don't want your children to receive religious instruction. You don't have to send them. Presumably you didn't. With all due respect, though, it really is none of your business what other people would like their children to receive or what churches would like to provide for them.
I do not have any children. I disagree that "it is none of my business what other people would like their children to receive or what churches would like to provide for them". Society as a whole has considerable say in what parents and others are permitted to do to children.
I took pains to include the fact that my own upbringing was too atheist/agnostic/non-religious in character so my complaint is not solely against religious instruction but against all attempts by anyone to indoctrinate or limit an individual's freedom of choice. Any by anyone I include parents and by individual I include children.
Speaking as someone who had a childhood, I believe that no parent has the right to limit or direct their child's education.
Which may go some way to explaining the bad behaviour of many children and young people today....