Bums on Seats

As the church are in the planning process for a new heating system, the question was posed to us that following the removal of all the church furniture, i.e. the pews, would we be putting them back again? The thought hadn't struck me before, and suddently the relevance of the church fabric to the outward mission of the church became clear. They are directly linked.

Ah, I hear you say, "when two or three are gathered in my name..." doesn't mention anything about a church building, well maybe not, but the NT is littered with references to meetings, whether in the temple, in one onothers' houses, or other places. The church has to meet and base its operations somewhere.

Consider this though, would you want to hold an outreach rally on your village green in the middle of winter in the cold and pouring rain (as it has been today - as evidenced by the repeated re-appearance of 2 soggy cats!), or would you want to have such meetings in a warm, non-stereotypical and comfortable building?

I've been sounding out opinion of various church members, and asked one after this evening's service what he thought the non-church-goer villagers might think, and his very meaningful reply was "they probably won't see it for a year".

But back to the link of fabric and mission. It's true to say that as a church, when we plan future mission and outreach activities, not individually, but as a whole strategy, determining what you can do is partly determined by the building and its capabilities. I am therefore now making a stronger case for the removal of the pews, to be replaced by loose, comfortable and flexible seating as one of the pillars of the church's Mission Action Plan.

You could say that it's one of those things that if we don't do it now, we never will, and I'd hate to be saying that about our outreach work.

World 1 : Christians 0 ??

Just reading around a number of articles and news items this last week, and also my own church's PCC notes, one could be forgiven for thinking that Christianity was being slowly and systematically killed off, both from without and within.

There are the continuing anecdotes that the church is shrinking, with attendancies declining. There are stories of further erosions of the country's christian traditions and heritage (and no doubt more will come in the run up to Christmas, sorry, Winter Festival), and there is the continuing saga of the liberal sections of the international CofE undermining and pushing out the conservative wing.

As mentioned, even my own church's PCC meeting notes reveals differences in desire between parish and diocesan treasurers for how the Parish Share should be calculated. Should it for instance depend solely on the population number that it serves; should it be based solely on the number of clergy (or part, as would be for a benefice)? Should it take account of the 'health & wealth' of the parish; and should it subsidise other parishes who can't/don't/won't pay their way? Further, should overpayment by a parish that can, be used to simply subsidise another parish in the denary, or should the cross-funding be based on specific gospel aims, or 'partnership'?

I read of a diocese in Latin America that is suffering as liberals (I subjectively define as supporting the revisionist topics of ofty and women bishops) are trying to remove their conservative traditions by removing their legal status to exist.

There are no doubt many more examples of attacks on the Christian faith as understood by those who share a gospel tradition of biblical authority as set out by sure-footed and sure-minded theologians and academics throughout the ages, but one thing strikes me; should we, as conservative anglicans fight against this inslaught, nationally and internationally, using the instruments society has developed, i.e. publicity, freedom of speech and the courts, or should we just get on with the task of making disciples, at the local level?

I don't know the answer!