Ship of Fools: Everybody Welcome

Thread: Everybody Welcome - the course Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029629

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

I have a lot of time for the statistics-based thinking of Bob Jackson. I see that a few years ago he wrote a course on church growth called 'Everybody Welcome'. Has anybody encountered or used this course? What is distinctive about it, and is it effective when used well?

All thoughts welcome - thank you!

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I used it in my last parish in the UK and found it very helpful. We didn't find the video clips too helpful as they tended to be about contexts and situations very different from our own. But the exercises helped us to think more clearly about what we were doing well and what we could improve on.

For example, one of the things we did was to walk around the church (inside and out) and determine how off-putting it might be to come to the church as a newcomer.

Almost all churches like to think of themselves as "welcoming" but it can sometimes be sobering to realise how far we can fail in this. Being a genuinely welcoming church (regardless of the size or style of worship) is always a Good Thing! "Everybody welcome" can help you to get a little bit better.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Where's Galifrey? Sounds like one 'ell of a place!

And welcoming who?

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

For example, one of the things we did was to walk around the church (inside and out) and determine how off-putting it might be to come to the church as a newcomer.

It's the stupid little things that make a welcome. I've not forgotten a church I visited with my young godson and his family. Godson needed the loo halfway through as five year olds do sometimes. The only one available was several hundred yards away (it was raining - this is Britain) across a muddy field in a caravan with no paper. Since then my basic measure of whether a church is welcoming is "is there a loo and does it have paper in it?"

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I think this may have been the course we did a few years ago. If not, it sounds very similar.

In one way it was good as it got us to look at all the ways in which we could, as a whole church, improve our welcome. But there was one glaring omission - it appeared that it was all the parishioners' faults, nothing at all was said about eg. whether the sermon was offputting, or other clergy/reader input. As they are often seen as the official face of the church, it would only be fair for the staff to be included as well as the laity.

Of course, this extra addition could easily be worked into the open ended part of the course material and then the course would be even better!

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

Given the demographic profile of the average C of E congregation, I would have thought that a decent toilet on or very close to the premises was a necessity on a par with heating and lighting?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Given the demographic profile of the average C of E congregation, I would have thought that a decent toilet on or very close to the premises was a necessity on a par with heating and lighting?

I've been in at least one church where "very close" meant "if you ask nicely the church warden will let you use theirs". There's only so much you can do with a 14th century village church surrounded by a graveyard.

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

I know the problem! As incumbent of several such churches, in one village I had to locate the only corner where one was invisible, under a tree next to a grave. I would tell the Wardens I was just off to check that Mrs Thomas was OK - they would ask me to pass on their best wishes.... [Devil]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think one of the most off-putting things about many churches is the sheer amount of clutter, a lot of which seems to be just by the entrance.

Yes, members of the congregation may view the clutter differently or see it as vital: service booklets; pew sheets; old magazines;, rotas for everything from cleaning to flower arranging; piles of PCC minutes waiting to be collected; etc, etc, etc. As an insider you may value all of this, but to a chance visitor it is just mess.

Noticeboards can be worse - I went back to a parish where I previously worked and found posters 2 years out-of-date and insurance certificates for a full 6 years (the older, the more illegible).

All churches should ensure that noticeboards are tidy, up-to-date, have only relevant information, and include things of community, not just church, interest.

Similarly inside the church should be clean and tidy: have a spring clean at least once a year and appoint someone to ensure the place is kept up to scratch.

And yes, there should be a loo: if you haven't got one, how about you make an arrangement with the local pub (often the next door building) for worshippers to use theirs? We offer free advertising in return for loo use.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And the concept of access for the disabled is another entire level up. Legislation in the US has forced most public buildings to have access for the handicapped. The ramps and elevators may look ugly in a historical building, but they make a huge difference to those who need them.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the concept of access for the disabled is another entire level up. Legislation in the US has forced most public buildings to have access for the handicapped. The ramps and elevators may look ugly in a historical building, but they make a huge difference to those who need them.

But often leave the congregation in the middle of a power struggle between different agencies-- the fire dept. making demands for fire safety, another agency making demands for access, and a historical society making demands to restrict non-historical additions. Each of these groups may have legal authority to issue mandates, yet are under no compulsion to negotiate with the other two. I've found this daunting here in Calif where the very oldest buildings are less than 100 yrs old-- in a place like the UK one can only imagine.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My brother-in-law is the pastor of an old church in central Texas. Old there means 160 years old. It has steps, front and back. There are members who simply cannot climb them. There's no problems with zoning or building a ramp -- it's purely a question of money. Which they don't have.

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the concept of access for the disabled is another entire level up. Legislation in the US has forced most public buildings to have access for the handicapped. The ramps and elevators may look ugly in a historical building, but they make a huge difference to those who need them.

The (UK/England & Wales) Equality Act 2010 means that churches etc are expected to make adaptations only when they are 'reasonable'. As always, that's a word to keep lawyers in business, but as many churches here go back hundreds of years there's many which have little or no access arrangements. It's a challenge which will continue to face us, making churches accessible to all when the buildings are protected as well.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As an insider you may value all of this, but to a chance visitor it is just mess.

Can I speak up for us 'chance visitors'. My wife and I often visit churches (of all denominations) and rarely find the environment off putting. When there are volunteers they are unfailingly friendly. Welcoming odd visitors is something you all do extremely well.

But it doesn't make us any more likely to become Christians.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
Can I speak up for us 'chance visitors'. My wife and I often visit churches (of all denominations) and rarely find the environment off putting. When there are volunteers they are unfailingly friendly. Welcoming odd visitors is something you all do extremely well.

But it doesn't make us any more likely to become Christians.

May I ask why you are a frequenter visitor?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

One (small) thing "Everybody Welcome" highlighted for us was that we were expecting people to come into a church when they couldn't see inside before entering. And that can be really off-putting for someone visiting the church for the first time.

Whilst it is probably unreasonable to expect Victorian (or older) churches to replace their doors with ones which have windows, you can do something to help this. We had some glass outer doors, so we changed our procedures for Sundays so that the inner, wooden, doors were kept wide open as much as possible.

As I say - it's a small thing. But small things add up. And the overall impact of the course was that it made people think more widely about such matters. It made people think in a more welcoming mode. I had a number of visitors say to me over the course of a few years that they found our church welcoming and inviting. This was a place that had previously had a reputation for being distant and unfriendly. I don't really want to claim any credit for that - but I do think that doing the "Everybody Welcome" course helped church members rethink a lot of things.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
May I ask why you are a frequenter visitor?

They include some of the most beautiful buildings in Britain, some resonating with a sense of other times, others just strange or quirky - almost all welcoming. Whether we believe or not we are heirs to the world that created them. Our ancestors were buried in their churchyards, their births, marriages and deaths were recognised there. Every period of our history from before the Normans came has left its mark.

Each church is, to quote Philip Larkin, "a serious house on serious ground". Something which many of us feel has been lost from our society even if we lack the religious sense which some would insist was essential to such a view.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well said !

[Overused]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Thank you, que sais-je, for your thoughtful answer.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
[Churches] include some of the most beautiful buildings in Britain, some resonating with a sense of other times, others just strange or quirky - almost all welcoming. Whether we believe or not we are heirs to the world that created them. Our ancestors were buried in their churchyards, their births, marriages and deaths were recognised there. Every period of our history from before the Normans came has left its mark.

Each church is, to quote Philip Larkin, "a serious house on serious ground". Something which many of us feel has been lost from our society even if we lack the religious sense which some would insist was essential to such a view.

You seem to be referring specifically to old churches. A newer building - or indeed a newer denomination - probably wouldn't serve this function for you.

The time will surely come in Great Britain when the warm welcome to a beautiful old church building will have to be provided as a secular service, as Christians will no longer have the numbers or the resources to do this job. This might make it easier to be 'serious' in such places without the views of religious people clouding the issue.

I predict that the secular, almost touristic welcome, and the evangelistic one, will no longer overlap, as they do now, because the process will involve quite different people, in different places.

[ 24. January 2016, 13:37: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The time will surely come in Great Britain when the warm welcome to a beautiful old church building will have to be provided as a secular service, as Christians will no longer have the numbers or the resources to do this job. This might make it easier to be 'serious' in such places without the views of religious people clouding the issue.

I predict that the secular, almost touristic welcome, and the evangelistic one, will no longer overlap, as they do now, because the process will involve quite different people, in different places.

Firstly, I don't feel the views of religious people cloud the issue. That is after all one way to be serious (perhaps in the end the only one). And the idea of a 'touristic' welcome is very unappealing. I'd rather talk to someone who sees the place as a living part of their life than as a museum piece or curiosity.

As for new churches, I'm 65 so the old churches will out last me! Whether many of the younger generation will feel the same about churches I don't know and tend to doubt. To everything there is a season, perhaps we're approaching the one of casting away stones.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think one of the most off-putting things about many churches is the sheer amount of clutter, a lot of which seems to be just by the entrance.

Yes, members of the congregation may view the clutter differently or see it as vital: service booklets; pew sheets; old magazines;, rotas for everything from cleaning to flower arranging; piles of PCC minutes waiting to be collected; etc, etc, etc. As an insider you may value all of this, but to a chance visitor it is just mess.

Noticeboards can be worse - I went back to a parish where I previously worked and found posters 2 years out-of-date and insurance certificates for a full 6 years (the older, the more illegible).

All churches should ensure that noticeboards are tidy, up-to-date, have only relevant information, and include things of community, not just church, interest.

Similarly inside the church should be clean and tidy: have a spring clean at least once a year and appoint someone to ensure the place is kept up to scratch.

And yes, there should be a loo: if you haven't got one, how about you make an arrangement with the local pub (often the next door building) for worshippers to use theirs? We offer free advertising in return for loo use.

Yes I agree. I walked into one such church on Saturday -- clutter everywhere, old notices, I had to work hard to find out when the services were and/or any contact number if I needed one.

And, it's not as if this church is off the beaten track ....

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Similarly inside the church should be clean and tidy: have a spring clean at least once a year and appoint someone to ensure the place is kept up to scratch.

You would not believe how contentious such an idea can be - the thought that someone has the right to throw away other peoples' undisposed junk can cause enormous ructions ... even though the originators of said junk won't get rid of it themselves. Also causing reverberations is the idea that not every flyer advertising local concerts or charities is necessarily relevant to the church's life and mission: "So-and-so will be upset if we don't put it out".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
You would not believe how contentious such an idea can be - the thought that someone has the right to throw away other peoples' undisposed junk can cause enormous ructions ... even though the originators of said junk won't get rid of it themselves. Also causing reverberations is the idea that not every flyer advertising local concerts or charities is necessarily relevant to the church's life and mission: "So-and-so will be upset if we don't put it out".

Hahaha, I remember as a youth (can't remember exactly when) helping my pastor clear out cupboards and having to put everything back - including old hymnbooks and other accumulated junk over the last 100 years - because he couldn't bring himself to throw anything away. One particular item that I remember was something which nobody remembered using for at least a generation.

[ 25. January 2016, 08:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Similarly inside the church should be clean and tidy: have a spring clean at least once a year and appoint someone to ensure the place is kept up to scratch.
You would not believe how contentious such an idea can be - the thought that someone has the right to throw away other peoples' undisposed junk can cause enormous ructions ... <snip!>

Having been told that we needed to use some not very accessible pew space for the musicians to sit in so as to make more space for the general congregation, I popped into our shack last week and binned loads and loads of stuff.

Everyone had a few days notice via email to clear out anything they didn't want to get chucked, and after that ... No Mercy.

I'm still waiting for the howls of outrage when someone discovers exactly what I've purged (it was all broken or hadn't been used in at least a decade and wouldn't be used again). And you know what? I won't care, because I am now too old and too horrible to put up with that kind of bollocks. Dump a job on me, live with the consequences
[Devil]

{edited for cock-ups, despite preview post}

[ 25. January 2016, 11:53: Message edited by: Snags ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I think churches should hold occasional bonfires to burn this stuff. And include the odd heretic for old times' sake.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Given the demographic profile of the average C of E congregation, I would have thought that a decent toilet on or very close to the premises was a necessity on a par with heating and lighting?

I have never been a regular attender at a C of E church with a toilet in the church building. Church halls have always had one - sometimes, these have been next to the church, and sometimes down the street.

I did once visit a church which was undergoing renovations to their hall, so had hired a plastic portable facility, which was set up in splendid isolation in the middle of the church lawn. In full view of the church's impressive picture windows. So the whole congregation was treated to the sight of Mrs. Jones making her way across the lawn to the facility.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So the whole congregation was treated to the sight of Mrs. Jones making her way across the lawn to the facility.

At least it didn't have windows -- or so you didn't mention. [Ultra confused]

Miss Amanda has been known to squat behind her open car door and hope that security cameras weren't trained on her, but she'd much prefer to use clean, modern facilities in the church vestibule or basement.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
Given the demographic profile of the average C of E congregation, I would have thought that a decent toilet on or very close to the premises was a necessity on a par with heating and lighting?
I have never been a regular attender at a C of E church with a toilet in the church building. Church halls have always had one - sometimes, these have been next to the church, and sometimes down the street.

I did once visit a church which was undergoing renovations to their hall, so had hired a plastic portable facility, which was set up in splendid isolation in the middle of the church lawn. In full view of the church's impressive picture windows. So the whole congregation was treated to the sight of Mrs. Jones making her way across the lawn to the facility.

We have an accessible toilet in the church and two more 'ordinary' loos (though one is child-sized for the playgroup) in the hall, which is through a door next to the accessible loo.

We also have accessible entrances, so no problem for wheelchairs etc., and we are about to embark on a feasibility study to re-do the kitchen area and so on so that things will (should!) be improved.

We certainly do have *clutter* because there is not enough storage space, and it certainly irks me to see stacks of chairs and other stuff littering the place - this lack of storage will also feature in the feasibility study!

I am in charge of the display boards and outside noticeboard and I try to keep them as up-to-date and relevant as possible. Certainly most visitors complement us on the beauty of the interior, and the well-kept church garden (Mr Marten is head gardener). At the moment that is as much as we can do....

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Our church is about 12 years old, and the parish hall was renovated about 10 years ago, so both have to meet code.

Our church, which comfortably seats about 300 (400 if they're close friends) has six stalls in the ladies' room -- five standard size, one wheelchair accessible. There are three wash basins and a baby changing table. The men's room is equally large, but I haven't counted their facilities. Both restrooms are off of the narthex -- the original blueprint had them accessible only from outdoors, but parishioners requested the change before we broke ground. The parish hall has one very large unisex restroom -- easily accessible by wheelchair with attendant, families, whoever. (The church restrooms are just across the sidewalk so can also be used when there is an event in the parish hall.) Both buildings have handicap-accessible entries.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

The problem with providing loos is that someone has to clean them and they are expensive to run, especially if the church is open all day and people use them as a public convenience.

Does a church which only makes its loos accessible to those who come to services of worship qualify as a church where everybody is welcome?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The problem with providing loos is that someone has to clean them.

Speaking of which . . . .

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The problem with providing loos is that someone has to clean them and they are expensive to run, especially if the church is open all day and people use them as a public convenience.

Does a church which only makes its loos accessible to those who come to services of worship qualify as a church where everybody is welcome?

Of course Trinity, Wall Street, is one of the wealthiest churches in the world and can afford teams of cleaners, but it's nice to see that
providing restrooms to those who visit Ground Zero and other tourists is part of their mission.

Posted by RainbowGirl (# 18543) on :

Our church suffers from all these issues. There's currently a war going on between parishioners over videos. The estate of a much loved member of the congregation willed dvd's and videos to the church to sell. The videos are all recordings of free-to-air television shows and there are literally thousands of them. They fill half the hall and we can't sell them, we can't give them away, we can't donate them, but quite a few parishioners are flat out refusing to allow anyone to throw them out. Until it gets sorted out our church hall is now unusable.

Our church hall is also where the only toilets within the vicinity of the church are located, and it is used as the parish office, and a meeting room.

The store room, where all this sort of thing should go is filled with relics from the churches past. Being the oldest church in the area (it doesn't go anywhere near to the age of English churches, but for Australia over 100 years old is practically ancient) there are all sorts of odd things in there. Just in case anyone needs BCP's from the late 1800's...

I'm really tempted to just plead ignorance and throw the lot out.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Having just filled three industrial skips while my mother was in hospital, JFDI!

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
[Churches] include some of the most beautiful buildings in Britain, some resonating with a sense of other times, others just strange or quirky - almost all welcoming. Whether we believe or not we are heirs to the world that created them. Our ancestors were buried in their churchyards, their births, marriages and deaths were recognised there. Every period of our history from before the Normans came has left its mark.

Each church is, to quote Philip Larkin, "a serious house on serious ground". Something which many of us feel has been lost from our society even if we lack the religious sense which some would insist was essential to such a view.
You seem to be referring specifically to old churches. A newer building - or indeed a newer denomination - probably wouldn't serve this function for you.

The time will surely come in Great Britain when the warm welcome to a beautiful old church building will have to be provided as a secular service, as Christians will no longer have the numbers or the resources to do this job. This might make it easier to be 'serious' in such places without the views of religious people clouding the issue.

I predict that the secular, almost touristic welcome, and the evangelistic one, will no longer overlap, as they do now, because the process will involve quite different people, in different places.

Oh, so non-religious people are the only ones capable of producing unclouded thought?

Are you seriously suggesting that there would be sufficient agnostics/atheists who would be willing to volunteer to welcome tourists to churches? Maybe a handful of cathedrals could pay welcomers out of entrance fees, but 1000s couldn't. I doubt anything will save the 1000s of churches falling into dangerous disrepair if Christians aren't there to provide the money. Without parishioners, it's ridiculous to think that church buildings will survive as "public" buildings.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

I doubt anything will save the 1000s of churches falling into dangerous disrepair if Christians aren't there to provide the money. Without parishioners, it's ridiculous to think that church buildings will survive as "public" buildings.

I think you are right. Though no 'welcomers' are present or needed in many UK churches - usually we just wander in. It is one of the impressive things about them. To be able to do so at, for example, St Mary's at Wreay is remarkable. How long it can remain so is another matter.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Evangeline

Regarding 'unclouded thought', my point was that Christians are obviously biased by religion in their feeling for beautiful old churches; atheists are not, though they may well be biased by nostalgia, or a sense of their national heritage.

I agree that many - perhaps most - of the current places of worship used by the CofE are likely to fall out of use as churches by the end of the century. My thinking was that in some cases the de-consecrated churches will be taken over by secular bodies and run as tourist attractions. But you're right; this probably won't be possible in a huge number of cases.

Cathedrals are different, though. I imagine that some of their support staff are already non-religious, and this number will surely increase. But the cathedrals will surely remain in the hands of the CofE.

que sais-je

I find it hard to imagine an urban or even a suburban church, no matter how beautiful, just being left open without anyone keeping an eye on things or being available for questions!

Churches also require upkeep, of course, even if they hold no services. Visitors are probably inclined to give more money if there's more on offer.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find it hard to imagine an urban or even a suburban church, no matter how beautiful, just being left open without anyone keeping an eye on things or being available for questions!

You are right of course. Indeed the more beautiful, the less likely. Much more common in rural areas - and my example of Wreay is very rural.

Posted by moonfruit (# 15818) on :

I took part in a slightly abridged version of Everybody Welcome recently, and found it very useful; it has certainly informed/ changed a few things we do at my church.

It emphasized for us the need to do what you do well, and also the need for a welcome to extend beyond just a cheery 'hello' at the door - it's also about helping people to feel comfortable becoming a regular part of the worshipping community.

It also led to us introducing real coffee after the service, as opposed to instant, so on that basis alone I'm all in favour!

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One (small) thing "Everybody Welcome" highlighted for us was that we were expecting people to come into a church when they couldn't see inside before entering. And that can be really off-putting for someone visiting the church for the first time.

...

I do think that doing the "Everybody Welcome" course helped church members rethink a lot of things.

A parish I used to attend regularly could benefit from this course, I think.

I actually picked up many ideas of welcome from Repitching the Tent. Richard Giles's ideas about re-ordering buildings have largely been the focus of discussion of those interested in liturgics while the pages he devotes to thinking about how to make our churches welcoming are largely overlooked.

It's been a while since I last read it but I'm fairly sure that the door thing came up. Ours was one of those Victorian buildings, with heavy wooden doors, and wrought iron hinges that spread into tracery taking over much of the surface area. There was no way that windows could be installed. However, we had two sets of double doors. The outer set gave access to the porch, with its beautiful tile floor, a few icons for people to venerate, a fresh flower arrangement each week, and a tidy, up-to-date noticeboard.

Yet it was always a fight to persuade others that it might be a good idea to have at least these outer double-doors left wide open for services. Usually, only one side would be unlocked, and even that was just left ajar (and people often closed it completely behind them). It was the most unwelcoming sight, as was commented on once by my taxi-driver who saw it when driving me there and asked if I'd got the right church as it was closed - and this after I'd been explaining who we were and what we had done to transform the cherished building (which had previously been derelict) into something so lovely that the community appreciated.

I felt vindicated on one occasion when I went out into the porch for something and saw that the doors had again been closed. I opened them (from the inside) to find two of our regulars standing outside waiting for someone to arrive to unlock the church. These were people who knew that there was a service and who had come specifically for that, yet even they thought that the church was all locked up. What chance did a first-time visitor have?

Another thing was the access ramp. There was only one step to the main door but it was about 6 or 7 cm high - perhaps manageable for most people with walking difficulties but enough to make it unnecessarily difficult or completely impossible for someone relying on a wheelchair or similar. We had a wooden ramp but it was never put out when the church was open and was kept in storage in the space on top of the WC that we had had built, only accessible by stepladder. I brought this up time and time again and was simply shrugged off, being told that someone would always be willing to fetch it down if someone needed to use it.

But how was someone who needed to use it supposed to put in this request? They could only stay outside and shout through the closed double doors.

The most upsetting thing was that anybody who made it inside would have found some of the world's friendliest people, who would bend over backwards to show hospitality, offer a kind word, and show friendship and true Christian generosity, even to strangers. It just seemed that, in some ways, getting to experience this was a reward for the perseverance shown in getting into the building in the first place.

Then there was the question of the form of English used in the services. Dignified modern language and older forms of English were both authorised for use within our jurisdiction so it wasn't a question of that, but there was this attachment to older forms being used. Most people converting from non-Orthodox churches would have been raised in churches where modern English was used and most people exploring Christianity for the first time would not have had regular exposure to ye olde worlde Englyshe. Add to this that most of our regulars and occasional visitors did not have English as a first language, and there seems a compelling case for at least considering a change. Yet there it stood, as an unnecessary hurdle, purely because of the nostalgia of a few people. In fact, on the point of accessibility to people whose first language isn't English, when I brought up it I simply had it pointed out to me that they wouldn't be able to understand the language at all in Greece and Russia, as though that was something that we ought to be perpetuating.

It just shows that, many times, churches are unwelcoming not because its people are naturally cold - it's often quite the opposite - but rather because, as in all areas of life, the way we do things becomes familiar to us, and we come to see it as normal. It's only when somebody from outside our community/family/church encounters the way we do things and we see their surprised facial expressions that we may realise that our normal may be seen by somebody else as strange, a confusing, or even exclusive.

That's why web designers often get someone not involved in the process to look through their websites, it's why publishing houses hire copy-editors and proofreaders, and it's why churches need to be open to re-assessing the way they welcome from the perspective of an outsider.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0