Timothy Goode ViaMedia.News The Body the Church Forgot: Reimagining Sacred Space from the Margins
Phil Groves ViaMedia.News Some Things You Never Forget
The Bishop of Hereford has responded to Monday’s announcement of the Church of England national spending plans, as reported here in the Church Times.
Shrink grants in favour of funding parish clergy, Bishop of Hereford urges Church Commissioners
In both 1900 and 1915 Hereford had 352 beneficed clergy and 81 other clergy. In 1948 it had 157 beneficed clergy and 174 other clergy. In 1984 it had 98 beneficed clergy and 43 other clergy. Now, according to the CT article, it has 72 clergy (though it is not clear whether this is the aggregate number or just stipendiary clergy). I could go on at length about what I have seen in Hereford diocese, from parish to parish – I will be there tomorrow – but I would question Bishop Jackson’s claim that there is “Clear evidence that maintaining… Read more »
Then there is a lot of extra work to do to make lay ministry by volunteers a lot more of an attractive prospect and need to address the questions around regular Eucharist in lay-led parishes that are acceptable and congruent to the canons of the church.
I think the situation is a lot more complex than either you or StP claim it to be. However, I am certain that the answer does not rely on volunteers doing the work of professional priests.
I agree that volunteer ministry is a problem, partly because of the remorseless decline in the pool of likely volunteers (a problem amplified by the age distribution of the pool), and because of the effort which would need to be made in order to effect even the most basic provision relative to the time and energies of the likely volunteers. The age of the willing volunteer is perhaps behind us. So I am certainly not suggesting that there are any simple solutions. What I am suggesting is that the model of stipendiary ministry as we have known it is effectively… Read more »
I wonder if an ecclesio-darwinian future is inevitable, whether or not desirable, theologically, or otherwise?
Local churches with critical mass of finance, volunteering, ministry and mission capable of gathering and discipling new members, will continue to generate the committed giving capable of paying for stipendiary ministry. With decent leadership this can sustain generationally.
Local churches which don’t have this critical mass capable of sustaining faith, funding, full time professional and community through time…will die sooner or later (whatever the prevailing central thinking or funding)?
Thank you. I think that, based on present policy (whether on the basis of the existing financial settlement or that proposed by its opponents) will result in much the same outcome: of a small residue of ‘viable’ churches, and a vast mass of closures. It need not be this way, of course, as I have been suggesting here (and elsewhere) for many years. However, it does seem to be the most likely outcome, given that fewer than 1% of the thousands of churches where I have attended services have both an adequate critical mass and healthy age distribution. Yet what… Read more »
Thank you – a wealth of fertile questions to ponder (assuming we survive to do so).
I think this tension has been with us for a good while and already informs pastoral strategy within the C of E and often within deaneries. Some clergy have tight baptism policies and e.g. only bury church ” members” and don’t have much feel for older style parochial religion. Of course this is more noticeable in urban than rural settings. No doubt as you say decline in numbers, financial constraints, lack of clergy etc will act as an engine for change..But given the C of E’s historic understanding of itself as being the Church of the nation rather than merely… Read more »
Amen.
I am given to understand that within TEC, the Bishops are now alert to the challenges of diminishment.
The CofE faces a far more complicated declension, given everything you mention.
‘…the C of E’s historic understanding of itself as being the Church of the nation…’
Yes, but I guess the key question is whether this kind of self-understanding can make any real sort of sense any more – theologically, Biblically, phenomenologically, whatever – in a nation which wants to have less and less to do with this, or any church.
It has to be no coincidence that after decades of rigorist baptism policies, making prospective marriage couples jump through as many hoops as possible and a reticence to take the funerals of anyone except church members that a whole generation (if not two);have grown up feeling that the Church just isn’t interested in them and that the clergy are seen as difficult, patronising and remote, even at the point of need. I’m not stupid enough t think this is the only cause but it has to be a contributory factor. This has happened at least four times (same church) in… Read more »
“decades of rigorist baptism policies, making prospective marriage couples jump through as many hoops as possible and a reticence to take the funerals of anyone except church members” No wonder ordinary people don’t like that church! This is the opposite approach to the part of the C of E I know. If what you describe is widespread that is indeed a departure from the idea of being the church for everyone, towards a Congregationalist approach, presumably evangelical. But it is understandable as we find ourselves in a time of transition. The idea of being “a Christian country” is being displaced… Read more »
Thanks Froghole for that analysis. Before 2020 I worshipped at a church in a prosperous market town which had (and still has) a stipendiary vicar, his one and only church. It was decaying then and continues to decay. Apart from two communions on Sunday (8 am about 4 worshippers and 10.30am about 30, down from about 150 about 12 years ago) nothing happens from one week to the next. No Bible study, or any sort of church social activities. No baptisms, one or two weddings, one or two funerals. No churchwardens for more than a decade. And there’s the rub.… Read more »
Hopefully John Spence’s approach to finance will soon be consigned to history. Completely agree with the Bishop of Hereford. Any coincidence that many Diocesan synod motions are appearing along similar lines now that Welby has gone?
In regard to Timothy Goode’s article: I sit on the vestry of my TEC parish and, since my wife is semi-disabled (a polio survivor), I have taken a lead role in efforts to make our space more accessible…and run into some real obstacles. First is just the logistics of dealing with a building that is 125+ years old. It was designed and built in a time when “accessibility” was an unknown concept, and the cost of making it so is prohibitive. Second is practicality. It’s more than a putting in a few ramps–because building codes require those ramps to meet… Read more »
I remember a former archdeacon of Ely describing a church where if you put ramps in for greater access, you would end up with a switchback ride.
That’s just about what we’re dealing with
I can wholeheartedly agree with your comments. As part of the re-ordering committee I spent many hours getting our DAC to agree to plans for a permanent ramp. Temporary ones were unacceptable and acceptable permanent ones would have reached halfway down the main aisle. Eventually a compromise was found.
I’m really, really grateful that for the last 24 years of my ministry I worked in a new building (built in 1996), where everything on the main floor was at ground level, and there was a wheelchair-accessible elevator to the basement. We had other accessibility issues, but nothing like what people have to deal with in older buildings.
I am a wheelchair user who feels callee to ministry.i feel isolated because many churches have improved their access in every area apart from the chancel so I can do everything but preach or lead communion.
Yes, that would have been a problem for our church too. Everything was on ground level except for the altar and pulpit, which were about a foot higher, on a semi-circular platform. Ironically, in the geography of our church that would not have been impossible to address. Challenging, but not impossible.
One thing will I never forget is a gay member of synod standing up and saying she felt as through she had been ‘thrown under a bus’ by LLF and its supporters, I not suggesting that this comes under the category of murder, but she certainly felt strongly that her identity as a Christian first and foremost was being threatened by a church that she thought should protect her. I am not sure she, or those like her, ever got a clear response. Anyone?
Without knowing the nature of her complaint it’s hard for anyone to address it. How does LLF threaten anyone’s identity as a Christian?
Adrian, presumably this is about someone who felt that their Christian faith had required them not to act upon their same sex attraction, and understandably this considerable sacrifice would indeed be a central part of their Christian identity. To deny oneself in order to be a faithful follower of Christ is central, and no doubt this resolve strengthened and sustained by much prayer. Decades of living this way will obviously also reinforce the conviction that this is the only Christian path open to them. And now LLF comes along and suggests that maybe it’s all been a mistake. Yes, I… Read more »
If Nigel’s post has called it right this matches my experience when involved in overturning the Armed Forces homosexuality ban. There were a number of serving people who had repressed their sexual lives, at great cost, in order to build a successful Armed Forces career. So when the ban was overturned with few problems, and it was seen how easy it was to integrate openly gay people into the Armed Forces, this caused profound distress to such previously closeted people. Had their costly self-suppression and denial been based on a false premise? Protecting the feelings and experiences of such people… Read more »
Why do you think this question remains unanswered?
Scripture hasn’t changed in the intervening time we’ve discussed, it still remains right and good for our instruction.
Simply repeating a question or arguing that things should change isn’t going to automatically change people’s minds on this.
“Why do you think this question remains unanswered?” What question?
The fundamental question you believe needs answering in that comment has been answered in Scripture.
The question is more will we listen to this.
Gareth, past evidence tells us that whilst Scripture is unchanging, how people interpret Scripture can be influenced greatly by the prevailing culture. Whether we are talking about cosmology with Galileo and Copernicus, or evolution with Darwin, or slavery, or the role of women within the church. In each case a change in cultural understanding was followed, after much protest and debate, with the church adopting her interpretations to these new understandings. Partly it was due to people within the church changing their mind, but also down to generational change. “Repeating a question or arguing that things should change” does not… Read more »
You think it has been answered in scripture (and in a particular way). Other people either don’t find a direct answer in scripture or find a different one from you. How you understand scripture is shaped by the culture from which you approach it (both secular and ecclesiastical).
Thank you for the link to the Phil Groves article.
and for Timothy Goode’s.
Thank you so much for the Phil Groves article. It should be required reading for anyone who wishes to contribute to the debate about LLF, or has views about the Anglican Communion and who may or may not be in full communion with other members. I hope those who support the CEEC and The Alliance will all read Phil’s piece.
Archbishop Donald Mtetemela, a member of ACI and a very close friend of Bishop George Sumner, who had left Yale to serve as a missionary in Tanzania in the mid 80s. What a saint. Fr Groves and I have different remembrances of these gatherings in Africa. My memory of ++Donald was of a man seeing a set of Western sexuality novelties he could not countenance, a different priority grid, and worries about where all of this would go. I treasure time with him, later in Nairobi, where I was asked to do translation for French speakers. The African Anglican situation… Read more »
Some issues might dominate these threads Christopher but I think you miss the point of what Phil Groves is very carefully saying. People are complex but to project an issue on to a person is to dehumanise them, and no Christian should have a part in that, whether African or English or whatever. Phil describes some people who have been on a journey, and other people who struggle to demonstrate integrity in what they believe. That any Christian, let alone Anglican, should be involved in promoting the death penalty in the way he describes should cause us all to hang… Read more »
God bless.
Thank you Christopher. And also with you. I am glad we find agreement.
Err… I understood the ‘sexuality novelties’ which AP referenced to be ideological innovations, not human beings.
Well I think you understood that wrongly and I think that’s the point of Phil Groves’ excellent piece. And it’s the reason why Christopher has a different remembrance of the gatherings in Africa. As Paul Simon once wrote:
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
There aren’t ideological innovations in this matter, there are human beings with a different understanding.
Obviously.
I think one of our differences is that some people believe it’s possible to discuss sexual ethics as impersonal ‘ideologies’, abut others believe we’re always talking about human beings.
If that takes us to a place where people assert that those who disagree with their ideas are automatically attacking or rejecting them as people, then we’re in for some dark times indeed. I think it’s vital to be able to distinguish between humans as persons and as idea-holders. I may need to challenge, question, reject or deeply critique the ideas you hold if they are in (it seems to me) soul-endangering error. But that must not stop me seeing and treating you as worthy of value and respect as one created in the image of God. If the simple… Read more »
If someone’s beloved spouse is reduced to an “idea/ideology/ideation” then here we are.
Archbishop Donald Mtetemela is indeed a wonderful man. I am sure your memory of him is similar to mine. You may need to look at the article again. The bishop the Presiding bishop engaged with was Bishop Mdimi Mohogolo of DCT. He led the way in the house of bishops – at the time almost a lone voice – supporting ongoing engagement with TEC. His voice eventually carried the province and the majority of the bishops came to Lambeth 2008 and 2022. Archbishop Mtetemela was – and is more conservative – I hope I did not give a different impression.… Read more »
For clarification – the help I was offering the conservative bishops was practical. Any practical needs – communicating home etc. I was not there to help them in their aim.
Of course.
I agree. A gentle, convinced Christian man.
The discussion in this thread – and many others – illustrates one of the central problems of church growth and “discipleship”. Any potential new disciple trying to get a grip on what the “Anglican Church” represents could be forgiven for giving up.
Pam, what does the Anglican Church represent? Being a big tent with an overall aim of ‘spiritual exploration in the Christian tradition’ would cover it, but there are parts of the church that want to define it more narrowly. If we have grown ups in charge who recognise that some versions of faith are steps on the way towards maturity that would be good. Some self-confident parts of the church remind me of teenagers who famously think they know everything and that the adults are stupid. They need to be loved and encouraged, but not be put in charge.
Totally agree ‘ There is yet more light and truth to break forth from God’s Holy Word’ So spoke John Robinson as the Pilgrim Fathers left Plymouth. Would that we today in the church would heed his words rather tha retreating into the past. The living and not the dead.
Wonderfully patronising, particularly the idea that people who hold a high view of Scripture are immature.
Surely arguing for upending the traditional position of the church over two millennia and the authority of Scripture is more akin to teenagers arguing that the adults are wrong?
Those who supported slavery did so on the basis of a very high view of scripture did they not? We overturned that and I presume you agree with that decision?
I’ve responded to that elsewhere. I’m always curious when people respond seeking to undermine Scripture further rather than understanding it in its context. The argument rarely is, let’s hold Scripture in high regard in what it says, but rather oh, we’ve decided not to hold it in high regard here, so let’s not hold it in high regard there. Isn’t it better to simply say, let’s hold it in high regard everywhere? This is precisely why I think the current discussions we’re having are simply symptomatic of having different beliefs about what the Bible is. Is it authoritative in matters… Read more »
‘Is it authoritative in matters of faith and conduct or is it not?’ Yes it is. But that is not the issue. Believing in the authority of the bible has never prevented our evangelical world from disagreeing and dividing over how it should be interpreted on different subjects – quite the reverse. Why do you assume that someone disagreeing with you over what the bible teaches cannot possibly be as serious about it as you?
No.
“Is it authoritative in matters of faith and conduct or is it not?”
Yes, but not in matters of history or science (or several other subjects I won’t bother to list here). And many of the current controversies in the church are rooted in those areas–sexuality is certainly a scientific issue as much as it is a theological one…and when it comes to understanding the meaning of the words used in ancient texts to describe sexuality, history should play a role as well.
I won’t bother to repeat my link to what St Augustine said about science. In short, Christians can make themselves look very foolish, and hinder the gospel.
“Is it authoritative in matters of faith and conduct or is it not?” It’s difficult to see how a library of books can act in such a way; that looks like a category error to me. However, assuming it is possible for books to hold authority, surely there are different kinds of authority? If the Scriptures are authoritative, the Bible’s authority is not that of a tyrant or a dictator, but it’s certainly treated as if it is by conservative evangelicals. Worldwide the various strands of Christianity differ in so many ways- serious ways to the point where they declare… Read more »
By some conservative evangelicals. Do not confuse conservative evangelicals with fundamentalists.
As you would have it, then,
‘by some conservative evangelicals.’
I can’t help thinking this is a classic red herring, distracting from the question rather than engaging with it, but I accept some conservative evangelicals don’t like to think of themselves as taking an authoritarian view of the authority of scripture. In which case, I presume non-fundamentalist conservative evangelicals agree that the Bible’s teaching is not self evident and does in fact need to be interpreted (only by conservative evangelicals, obviously).
Jesus said ‘I have come to set the captives free’. What’s there to disagree about?
Er … OK – so why are so many people still in prison then? It is all about interpretation. That was my point to Gareth.
Hi Gareth, yes, I fear it does sound patronising. Sorry about that. But if you have two sides who each think the other is wrong isn’t that inevitable?
So, you think the “adults” are the people who “hold a high view of Scripture”. I am open to persuasion. Can you make the argument for why we should trust the Bible’s reliability more than we do that of any other historical documents?
Probably my last comment, but why wouldn’t you? We know that both the New Testament manuscripts and the Old Testament manuscripts are authentic in their transmission (The New Testament particularly in comparison to other ancient manuscripts that we regard as reliable). Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Christ is resurrected giving authenticity to His word to us. The apostles didn’t die for a lie. The gospel accounts we do have are particularly early and particularly detailed in respect to times, places, people and events to the point of being verifiable within a lifetime of Christ. There’s plenty that… Read more »
It is plain to see online that evangelicals cling to inerrancy to justify exercising their prejudices and blaming God for it. It allows them to elevate commentary from the apostles to the status of dominical command, and equivocate away the aspects of the Gospel that challenge the social and economic status quo. Inerrancy also elevates the Bible into a paper calf. The number of times I’ve heard evangelicals call people to have faith in the Bible, to follow the Bible, rather than to have faith in and follow God in Christ is quite astonishing. As for the difference between “liberal”… Read more »
I couldn’t help myself. This requires us to assume that God the Holy Spirit speaks against the word that He Himself breathed. Which is convenient for pushing for changes that contradict Scripture, but taken to its logical conclusion would also mean that God could simply null and void His promises to us also. One of the best truths of Scripture is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and that God isn’t a flippant being who changes at the flip of a hat to suit our desires (Malachi 3:6). The idea that simply put that… Read more »
The conflation of “God-breathed” in a pastoral epistle with “every word directly dictated by God, entirely accurate in every respect and reproduced without error” coupled with the anachronistic application of that idea to not only the letter in which it appears but to books as yet unwritten at the time lays bare the nonsense at the heart of evangelicalism.
Your caricature is not evangelicalism. The dictation theory of inspiration has doubtless been held by some but evangelical doctrines of scripture are varied. Look at John Goldingay’s Models for Scripture for a much more sophisticated approach.
Straw person.
‘evangelicals cling to inerrancy …. ‘ Please – not all of us. And even within the more conservative end actually.
Sorry, you’re right. The most reactionary absolutist elements shouldn’t be treated as normative.
Common mistake to equate evangelicalism with fundamentalism.
Well some of it is of course.
I still can’t see the point of evangelicalism.
Aha – just seen these, so my reply above is redundant.
Well, I’m a liberal Christian and not an atheist, so there plainly is a difference.
It is possible to be Christian without that high view of scripture, and if anyone thinks all Christians have to think the same way as them, well, you don’t get any more “patronising” than that.
I’m afraid neither “why wouldn’t you believe in the reliability of Scripture?” nor “you have a problem if you don’t” are convincing arguments.
Nigel, it wasn’t patronising, it was one of the most incisive comments I’ve read on TA, precisely characterising a certain faction in Anglicanism.
Spiritual exploration is one side of the equation….but the “given”? For a Cof E clergyman there is the Declaration of Assent and the promise to u(se forms of service authorised by canon( and a more general framework of canon law)I don’t think that is unduly restrictive but it provides an ecclesial identity. And there is no doctrinal ” policing ” of the laity. The essence of parochial religion surely , to use the title of an older but valuable book on the parish is a “Church without walls”. But you could say there is a difference between what a person… Read more »
Thankyou, Perry. I suppose I think that the “given” is what I mean by “in the Christian tradition” in the sense of a common starting point. I agree that the Anglican tradition is historically less restrictive than some but, like much theology, still more restrictive than is useful. (Eg discussion about atonement… but maybe the cross is not about atonement at all.) I know it’s far too radical to become reality but I think it would be like a new dawn if the C of E of the 22nd Century was FAR more theologically diverse than it is (including traditionalists,… Read more »
And thankyou again, Perry! Yours is the comment I’ve been mulling on all day. Recovering from a hernia op so have more time for thinking. I’d rewrite my initial response to your comment if it were possible- got a bit carried away… on the other hand there’s no shame in us helping each other think better than we could do on our own, is there? So, on reflection, I think you’re right about ‘content’. I’m not really in favour of a free-for-all. I just wish that the C of E could acknowledge and celebrate some of the outliers, like Don… Read more »
I did mention the older book on the parish ” Church without walls” I’m a firm believer in parochial over sectarian religion and I like the image I heard an Orthodox bishop use once, the church is like a light bulb, a bright centre but the boundaries are unclear. I think the Cof E is inevitably a church that accepts degrees of commitment .But in an increasingly pluralist society some degree of identity is important. I think what the C of E is , is often ( esp for those of us brought up in it) implicit operating in the… Read more »
Is that what the ‘Anglican Covenant’ was about- ‘sign here that you agree (with us) that …’- a kind of ‘
modern’‘orthodox’ exclusionary 39 Articles. I prefer ‘broad church’ or maybe ‘Thinking Anglicans’ that don’t think the same as I do 😉 What do you think?The first three parts of the Anglican Covenant tried to map out the Christian faith as Anglicans felt they had received it, in a positive way. It was the fourth part that sank it: the use of a disciplinary procedure against Provinces that were thought to have stepped out of line ( esp on the gay issue). The Communion simply wasn’t that sort of ” communion”. Now it isn’t really much of a communion in reality at all since Provinces are no longer in communion with each other and even ” bonds of affection” have frayed. The next Archbishop will… Read more »
They would learn that the Anglican Church is like this thread. They would have to decide if that constitutes a coherent belief.
Maybe they wouldn’t care. They would like the lack of anything concrete.
You can see the reactions below. That is the church of this thread.
At least are happy enough with the church to remain a member.
“You can see the reactions below.” Means, “previous reactions to your comment.”
“the lack of anything concrete”… Is that the case? even here on TA? Despite no doubt much disagreement on the details of all these points, do we not all – seek to follow the teaching and example of Jesus, inspired by him – believe in a God who is behind all of Creation – believe that in Jesus we see something of the nature of God – value the Bible – believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection are relevant and meaningful today – believe in kindness and caring for the weak – believe in the importance of living our faith… Read more »
Let the thread decide.
Virgin Birth
Cross as atoning sacrifice (choose your model)
Bodily resurrection
Ascended to the Right hand
Return for Final Judgment
“see something of the nature of God” does that mean God of Go, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not made?
To be clear, I am only trying to reflect places where there would obviously be no agreement. I am trying to be fair to this thread.
“I am only trying to reflect places where there would obviously be no agreement”
I would have thought that people who adhere to your list would also be happy with mine. That was the point: to show that although we may disagree on much, there’s still enough common ground for it to be meaningful to say that we are all Christians.
Nigel – I agree with you on most of what you write but Bp Stephen Bayne – perhaps the greatest of all thinkers on Anglicanism – would object when you say there is something that can be ‘distinctively Anglican, rather than just Christian’. Bayne argued that Anglicanism has no eternal distinctiveness and what we should always be striving for is to be simply Christian. The openness to the points you have highlighted (and we could endlessly argue about the details) can only be what it is to be a follower of the Way of Jesus Christ – not what it… Read more »
I believe this has been the position of other key thinkers in the Anglican Way. ++Ramsey. The Bishops gathered in 1920 at Lambeth. The ACNA catechism is entitled “To Be a Christian.”
This is a different question to whether those in the Anglican Way have something definitive to say arising from the historic claims of the Nicene Creed — Bayne would subscribe to these unless I am mistaken.
++ Ramsey and Stephen Bayne were very closely aligned.
I think Bayne would have challenged new catechisms and creeds (eg. the Jerusalem Declaration) because of their ecumenical impact. They require you to insist all churches sign up to be acceptable.
The Nicene Creed he thought vital as all mainstream churches agreed to it.
The problem for ACNA and affiliates is that it doesn’t include anything on marriage, hence the CEEC advice to compare the acceptance of equal marriage to accepting the validity of murder.
I was only speaking about a catechism “To Be A Christian” to note the important factor you mention. Yes, Ramsey and Bayne were closely aligned.
I was not speaking about your paragraph 2 and don’t know how it is relevant to my point.
Your paragraph 3 needs underscoring and something like clarity about assenting to it.
Bayne and Ramsey would likely look at this thread and wonder what is happening. I doubt very much they would be ‘Thinking Anglicans’ in the manner of tribes here.
Actually, I don’t doubt it in the least.
Thankyou, I agree: I am not looking for a distinctively Anglican version of Christianity. I shall investigate the book and author you mention- much appreciated. I’m only thinking aloud on here.
Thank you – Nigel do look it up – I think you will enjoy it
Any new disciple is a disciple of Christ, not a man-made institution. Rather than spend time trying to fathom what the “Anglican Church” is they should be seeking to know Christ more and to become more Christlike. Forget man-made structures, focus on Christ.
Who communicates who Christ is? The Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses? The RCs or Methodists? Which man-made structure interprets the bible correctly? Presumably the one whose views are the same as your own man-made opinions.
David, a rather negative response from you. Paul’s letters are full of instructions for the spiritual growth of the new disciple. For example Colossians 1: “9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, 10 so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with… Read more »
Just quoting bible verses is a pointless exercise. In which man-made structure is this to be read and interpreted? And the Eucharist celebrated?
Quoting scripture is pointless! I think not, just as meditating on God’s is not pointless either.
I cannot agree with you David, because I do not believe Our Lord would agree: Luke 4:4 Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone.”’ Luke 4:8 Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.”’ Luke 4:12 Jesus answered him, ‘It is said, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”’ Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. … 31 … have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,… Read more »
What’s the point of quoting all that on a Christian website? Throwing biblical verses at people is rarely a method of ‘proving’ your opinion.
If its any help, David, I can see your point fairly well. Faith has to be expressed in a practical way, most frequently with other believers in an organised body Depending on the organisational background in which a new believer is nurtured, they find way of expressing that faith which may differ in some (dare I say) minor details, particularly relating to structures, but agree on the important ones. In fact, I’d tend to agree with Rev Bayne – who is a new name to me – that Anglicanism, or any other denominational culture is far less important eternally that… Read more »
Inclusivity. What Timothy Goode speaks of could be called Inclusive Architecture, or Inclusive or Accessible Buildings. The buiding is inviting, welcoming, facilitating, encouraging, ‘speaking’. Why should church buildings be any different from shops, other ‘places of assembly’- they have to comply, why shouldn’t we? Arguably we have an excess of floorspace, thus opportunity. We can close uninviting buildings, but don’t. We love the building more than we love our neighbour.
That same inclusivity issue pervades more than the building too. Welcome.
And where do we get the funds to replace those closed “uninviting” building?
If we were building now, starting with a ‘blank sheet’ how many church buildings would we build, where, how big and how configured. ‘The building’ is not the church, though hopefully it will faciliate it- sadly, many don’t. Perhaps if we love our neighbour we may be able to help those who are remote from the church? What funds are needed for that?
Land made available by closing and demolishing church buildings should be used to house our homeless neighbours. I agree that would take money; surely funding should be available for that Christian imperative?