quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Fashioned Crab:
If you really want to kill people's commitment, try inviting them round to discuss their concerns about the fact that the Church will not allow women to sing in the choir, then tell them to stop whining and suggest to them that they have psychological issues which make them abnormally concerned with the choir. This happened to me last night

---

No.

You inferred I was stupid.

Back it up or take it back, or, as I mentioned, watch out.

I must admit that, shy and private though I am, I am quite warm by nature. I never quite get used to that many "warm" greetings in the context of church are ways of just getting people "involved," and wear off very quickly. I suppose the greetings are just a task... such as scrubbing the floor. They need to be cut off before any chance of real friendship can develop!

I'm sorry to hear this, but equally sorry that it will undoubtedly have other effects. I would agree that one must be very careful with violent criminals. But this will certainly (and unfortunately) lead to priests
avoiding contact with people who are just upset.

Once, when I was attending church group, a newcomer came to some of the sessions. I was there, and can say that he was not in any way violent, abusive, or anything else that can be construed as dangerous. But he'd said something negative about the church which upset someone else. The following week, the priest had a policeman there to make him leave!

Put anyone off church by
..asking them if they have only come to hear their banns read (especially if they have) or
..have their baby baptised (especially if they are not married)
....tell them they can't sit in a particular seat because Mrs Thingy always sits there
......have a "Ministry of Welcome" with badges....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renee:

My former church ran an Alpha course to which mostly parishioners came. However there was one fellow who visited and brought up some questions (just as he should in an Alpha Course). The next week, one of the course leaders handed out a several page treatise on the heresies that the visitor had touched on in the course of his inquiries.

Oh, yeah. I'd go back after that.

---

Similarly, a friend of mine told me about the housegroup he attended at uni.

He was doing a history of Western thought paper as part of his history degree, and they were studying some passage of Scripture which some thoughts he encountered in St Augustine's 'City of God' seemed to illuminate.

He respectfully offered this, only to be told by the leader that "we're not studying philosophy, we're studying Scripture/ the Word of God." I still feel angry about this bracketing of St Augustine with, I don't know, Nietzsche or someone ... the phrases, 'reinventing the wheel', 'bloody one-dimensional literalist
tinpot hierarchs', and 'yeah check your brain in at the front desk why don't you' spring unbidden to my mind.

Perhaps he felt as rejected as I did on his behalf! Does a housegroup need that kind of leadership??

It exists: A group for women in their middle years - with an evangelistic slant so you can invite your friends to it.

Now if you are a woman in your "middle years" how would you feel about being invited to such a group?

i have no idea of the content except it has an evangelistic opportunity.

When my parents joined a new church that his father went to, me and my brother became close friends with him and his sister, my mother was actually told that she should probably not let us play with them as they didnt come from a particularly desirable family.

At the same group of churches my mother was shunned when she gave up teaching for a year to train and work as a finacial advisor, this was done to her face and by old friends who started to treat her very badly.

I was criticised at this church for wearing jeans to church and skateboarding.

And as for sin of listening to the evil rock and roll (this is in the 90s for crying out loud) well you soul might burn in hell.

Also the pastor standing up the front of the church and criticising his wife week after week.

Being told to my face that I could not sing

This is something I have taken YEARS to come to terms with, my worship is pleasing to God because I love him, not because it is tune.

If somebody is out of tune let them sing that way. If it distracts you, more than momentarily, then you are not really worshipping. I know this from the reverse, I know I need to meet with God if I am offended by 101 people singing a harmony rather than the melody, I can get all offended that they are all promoting themselves rather than joining with the rest of the congregation.

So if you have ever been tempted to ask somebody to sing more quietly because they are out of tune then DONT and if you have repent and apologise!

as a scientist, I LOATH hearing church teachers telling me about pysdo-science, quoting christian urban myth like they know what they are talking about.

eg. 'Did you know carbon dating can't be calibrated?'

Don't forget "there are no transitional species"

Except, of course, Archaeopteryx, Panderichthys, Acanthostega, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus......

Have a nice old buildong with plenty of beauty and history inside and about. Gut the interior and replace the nineteenth century high altar, the wooden screen, the stone floor and the pitchpine pews with wall to wall carpeting (in a tasteful light blue colour) preferably with no nautral fibres so that if you run your fingers over it you can be plugged into the National Grid. Add to the carpet some stackable chairs and a number of plush cinema-style wooden seats. Arrange these somewhere near a small wooden kitchen table which you have purchased from IKEA. This is called 'the Holy Table'. It is so holy you can only use it about three or four times a year and for the rest of the time you can either hide it away or use it as a place to leave songsheets and coats and umbrellas. Next bring in a couple of OHP's and a set of drums.

How do you put this into operation?

Well, you start by having a 'worship service' which consists of sixteen people from 65-90 staring towards the front. A few people from ages 35-60 sit further towards the back. Four children run amok at the back of the building. You advertise this as 'Family Worship' or 'All-Age Praise'. This is enhanced by the worship leader dressing up as Superman, using a toy washing machine to talk about Jesus to the accompaniment of a deranged primary school teacher singing and playing a kazoo.

Eventually, if you switch to the all improved HTB brand of worship then you will fill your building with a whole set of clones who all talk, look and behave in the same way. It's quite likely the all went to school together as well. An added bonus of the HTB brand of worship is that they leave their brains at the door as they come in. This eases your work considerably.

This is a diabolically clever way of persuading people not to go to church. Yes, you may have a full church building but everybody else sees whats going on there and vows never to go near such a hideous place for the rest of their lives.

Success is thus guaranteed.

Cosmo

[corrected a spelling that was annoying me]

____________________________________

Without that vital ingredient then, yes, you are right, my church would be like your building, merely a curiously decorated (or not as the case may be) room.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
That, my dear, shows where we part company. For my 'bloody building' as you so carefully call it, is not a building. It is a place where Christ Jesus is (you know, the Son of God and stuff like the Blessed Sacrament), for all to worship and adore and praise and allow him to be with us.

Without that vital ingredient then, yes, you are right, my church would be like your building, merely a curiously decorated (or not as the case may be) room.

Cosmo

---

1. I am not 'your dear'. Kindly refrain from calling me that. Anyone would think you were my grandmother or something.

2. Look. I will not dispute that wishing to keep your curiously decorated building in a reasonable state and keeping it 'beautiful' (according to your aesthetic) because it is used for the worship of Christ is an admirable thing, fitting and proper.

But ultimately, it's how it's used that's important. The presence of Christ is still there in the back room in China, the cabin in Ghana, Fr. Gregory's back garden shed-chapel. It was there in the sewers of Rome during the Decian persecution. It was there in the cathedral when they consecrated the Archbishop. It was there in the miner's chapel in 1904.

It is there where the people of God meet. While having a good building and keeping it

Look. I believe that there can be said to objectively be 'good taste' and 'bad taste'. I despair at a world where people claim to have been spiritually moved by lame Hollywood blockbusters and consider (for example) someone like J. K. Rowling to be a better writer than Garcia Marquez.

But- and please will you pay attention to this, Cosmo - your aesthetic is not the only valid aesthetic, nor is it the only tasteful aesthetic. Kindly do not sneer at another church because your Victorian Gothic building is nicer than theirs.

Surely - if there is an honest communion of the Church there, Christ is there too.

I am from a tradition - yes, that's right, a tradition - where we do have an aesthetic that is austere and yet that is tasteful, that is valid, and that is different from yours.

While I personally happen to find your ecclesiastical knickknacks at best hilarious, tasteless kitsch at worst hideous, I know in my heart that my value of taste is not the only one, that there is value in these things because there is a large proportion of my brothers and sisters who are brought closer to Christ. Therefore I cannot dismiss these things, nor should I snipe constantly at my Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters (many of whom are big enough to at least admit that there may be other ways of doing things which are valid - even though they're not for them. You know who you are).

And I'll thank you not to snipe at those of us who are evangelical, reformed or even just a bit different.

__________________

I am sick and tired of low-level sniping directed at other denominations. By all means, aver that you don't like the way they do things, swear blind that you prefer it that way, but don't even try to patronise us. Don't mock us.

It would be easy to mock you back. But frankly, you deserve more.

I am not getting into another flame war about this (see 'the reformation should never have happened' thread back in the Archive). I stated my position there - those whose arguments I refuted ran away.

"Have a nice old buildong with plenty of beauty and history inside and about. Gut the interior and replace the nineteenth century high altar, the wooden screen, the stone floor and the pitchpine pews with wall to wall carpeting (in a tasteful light blue colour) preferably with no nautral fibres so that if you run your fingers over it you can be plugged into the National Grid. Add to the carpet some stackable chairs and a number of plush cinema-style wooden seats. Arrange these somewhere near a small wooden kitchen table which you have purchased from IKEA. This is called 'the Holy Table'. It is so holy you can only use it about three or four times a year and for the rest of the time you can either hide it away or use it as a place to leave songsheets and coats and umbrellas. Next bring in a couple of OHP's and a set of drums."

I've seen glorious old buildings which have been stripped down, simply in the name of "modernisation" with no thought to aesthetic. I'm not saying that it has to remain in the old style and never change, but that the decor should fit.

minimalist decor in the evangelical tradition can fit in well with old buildings, and enhance them. After all, the likes of Durham cathedral wouldn't have had pews in when it was built - nasty 17th century invention AIUI.

But it requires tact. some AC buildings remind me of overdone turkeys at Christmas - the reredos at newcastle Cathedral being a case in point.

The one at St Mary's beverley is very simple, by comparison, and yet rich.

It's as much about the motivation for doing something, as the doing it.

quote:

---

Cosmo wrote
... to the accompaniment of a deranged primary school teacher singing and playing a kazoo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Taste is not the primary issue. I know that there are some very tastefully decorated Protestant churches.

---

But you see, it's precisely that. Taste is not the issue. So why the bloody f*****g hell do so many people make it so?

I'm well aware that there are some architectural abominations, Angel. But you know what? I agree that a beautiful building should remain a beautiful building.

My objection is with those who seem to think that a beautiful building, nice knickknacks, the right kind of altar cloths, gold lamé surplices etc is the measure of a good church, and that people whose churches do not adhere to their aesthetic, let alone objectively good taste are somehow less acceptable as Christians. It is nothing to do with outrage at desecrated beauty.

It's about pure bloody-minded prejudice, and I'm sick at being on the receiving end.

It was Gilbert Scott (I think) who said all you actually needed for a church were four walls, a roof, an altar and a tabernacle. Now I despise many Roman churches (and Anglican - I'm always even-handed in my loathings) which have been built on precisely this principle, a stripping away of everything to the absolute bare essentials. There are many catholic churches which correspond exactly to the stereotype I wrote about at first of comfy carpets, IKEA kitchen tables and OHP's. Yet they are churches in that they have the Blessed Sacrament and celebrate the sacraments of the Church within. Thus they may be all vile within but they are still churches. It has nothing to with taste and everything to do with Sacraments.

To get back to the title of this thread I would argue that the vileness of any chapels and churches, both catholic and protestant, contribute massively to putting people off going to church. Why sit and stand for a couple of hours or so in a building which looks as though its been designed by a designer of gas chambers? Or a building in which the care taken over its decoration and the skill and design of the furnishings matches that of the Council Social Security Office and the language used in the worship corresponds to a Local Authority Circular about Sewage Disposal?

I then add to that the vileness of so many 'worship services' which are so superficially successful and yet, in reality, are a prime reason behind the lack of people going to church. Their shoddiness of liturgy, the sheer banality of the material offered to God in his praise, the feeblemindedness of so much of the theology involved, the utter rejection of the living tradition of the Church through the centuries in favour of a mindless devotion to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and a selfish notion of complete personal salvation and to hell with the rest of you; all this is why it is so successful on the surface (and thus others who don't do it get worried that they are doing something wrong) and yet so damaging and, frankly, frightening on the outside.

So, Wood, don't think I'm getting at you personally. Nor I am trying to impose a level of aesthetic on everybody else. What I am trying to do is disabuse the idea that Charismatic Evangelical All-Age Praise Family Worship with Bible Stories in Fuzzy-Felt in a building which looks like a carpet warehouse furninished with all its reject stock is the way forward for the Church because it isn't. It spells death.

quote:

---

What I am trying to do is disabuse the idea that Charismatic Evangelical All-Age Praise Family Worship with Bible Stories in Fuzzy-Felt in a building which looks like a carpet warehouse furninished with all its reject stock is the way forward for the Church because it isn't. It spells death.

---

The services I attend most Sunday mornings are, very probably in your eyes, closer to this stereotype than the high-church ceremonies you evidently prefer. Yet 'by their fruit ye shall know them' and we have everyone from new-born babies to eighty-odd year-old ladies with all ages in between, so we must be doing something right. We have a nice, modern building (I prefer old, mediaeval buildings myself but I find our church building on a sunny morning a very pleasant place to be). The fairly large numbers of children go out prior to the sermon to do their 'fuzzy felt' bit: what they actually do is stuff appropriate to whatever age they are, so our three-and a half year old came back at the end of yesterday's service with pictures of Abraham and Sarah stuck onto bits of card. But that's fine for a child of his age). The sermons are Bible-based, but with useful examples of personal experience/thought added, and none of our preachers (I hopefuly include myself) comes across as requiring anyone to have left their brains at the door.

Why did people go to HTB and the other churches like it? Because some of their friends went there and because they wanted to meet new people. These super-churches draw on a small section of society: students and nurses and young, childless unmarried professionals. When they move on so another set come in and fill the gap. It is all a facade.

The theology is suspect, the insistence on personal knowledge and salvation is downright unhealthy, the manner in which they worship God is trite, banal and childish. It gives simple answers to complex issues and when those answers are challenged by circumstance the answer is always the same: 'your faith isn't strong enough'.

So I stand by what I say. This form of worship, if allowed to continue and be accepted (God help us all) as the 'norm', will spell the death of the Anglican Church in particular. It repels more than it attracts (not only that but repels them for good, never to step foot in a church again for fear of being forcibly exorcised or called out as a sinner) and fails to sustain those who it manages to get. Just because these churches are full does not make what goes on inside them good or wholesome and it's about time that people in the Church were willing to stand up and declare that the emperor has no clothes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
I then add to that the vileness of so many 'worship services' which are so superficially successful and yet, in reality, are a prime reason behind the lack of people going to church.

...So, Wood, don't think I'm getting at you personally. Nor I am trying to impose a level of aesthetic on everybody else.

---

I suspect we are talking at cross purposes here, Cosmo.

All right. My cards on the table: you should be aware by now that I don't like that kind of worship style much either.

It annoys the hell out of me that the sublime words of so many hymnwriters are replaced by the lame banalities of people like Kendrick and Bowater. It annoys me that personal, individual salvation is preached without reference to community.

It annoys me that church history is regarded to have ended with Revelation and started again with Paul.

And it annoys me that people use the excuse of their salvation not to grow beyond the initial point of conversion.

The 'cuddly' evangelical church is IMHO, only worthwhile if it is actually coupled with intellectual honesty.

But if this spells death, why is it in every survey I've read for the last three or four years (including ones compiled by people who have no interest otherwise), that despite the shrinkage of the church in general, it's precisely the kind of church you hate (the mainstream evangelical-charismatic EA affiliated hybrid) that's the only one showing any statistical growth? Why does Spring Harvest get such an enormous number of - mostly Anglican - people going? Why is the (love it or hate it) Alpha course popular enough to be on British telly?

I mean, OK, I'd hazard that the majority of people moving to these churches are not new people, but rather transfers from other churches.

OK, In one point I agree with you - to people on the outside, it's completely terrifying. The higher, more traditional church is not so much - it's what people expect; it's informed British culture in a profound way. The new evangelical idiom is, to the outside, a figure of at best comedy, at worst, fear and contempt.

But - and it's a big 'but' - people in the church seem to like it. Why? I don't know. Why do people buy Steps singles? You don't have to like it, but basically, IMHO, the vast majority of people nowadays aren't concerned with aesthetics, within the church as well as outside it.

The hugest Anglican church I have ever been to was the recently refurbished (and wall to wall carpeted) St. Aldate's, Oxford - which was precisely this kind of church (if you know it Cosmo, I assume it's one of the ones you loathe). The place was thriving.

quote:

---

What I am trying to do is disabuse the idea that Charismatic Evangelical All-Age Praise Family Worship with Bible Stories in Fuzzy-Felt in a building which looks like a carpet warehouse furninished with all its reject stock is the way forward for the Church because it isn't. It spells death.

---

All right then, in this I agree with you.

So what is the way forward?

Look, I'll offer you an invitation. This is not a discussion I am willing to pursue here, partly because it's derailing this thread, partly because it's in Hell, and I'd rather discuss this more calmly. #

You claim not to hold my own tradition in contempt. You claim to care about a 'way forward'. Go on, then. Prove it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
Just because these churches are full does not make what goes on inside them good or wholesome and it's about time that people in the Church were willing to stand up and declare that the emperor has no clothes.

Cosmo

---

This was posted while I was composing my epic post just now.

I stand by what I said: it's all very well to say that we emperor has no clothes - but what are you going to dress him in?

What I am saying is that it is the HTB style of worship and theology that I most object to and that it is this sytle of worship which has seem the most growth. What irritates me most about them is that are not Anglican. Certainly they masquerade under the banner of the Church but their theology, liturgy and ecclesiology is someway away.

Undoubtedly there are many A/C priests (fewer now I suspect than in the ultra-decadent 70's and '80's) for whom the sermon is seen as an additional extra. The newer generation of A/C priests (love them or hate them) don't seem to have fallen into this trap.

Wood: I'm glad we were talking at cross purposes rather than just crossly. St Aldate's is an example of everything I dislike, parody and try to justify why I dislike it so. Yes, it's heaving, yes, it's superficially popular. But, it leaves a lot to be desired pastorally and theologically. When I was in Oxford there were several confirmed re-baptisms and public exorcisms there. That is not Anglicanism. Neither is it protestantism. That's almost a cult.

When I get my arse in gear I'll write an apologia for Anglican Catholicism. I've found that if you reason, listen and explain, you convert and not only that, you convert for good and not just while they're at university and lonely.

Maybe we are not talking about the same sort of church. I don't know what HTB is. But "forcibly exorcised or called out as a sinner" - I mean, what? Please don't base your whole opinio on a single experience, if that's what it is.

If the people in your parish are drawn to an anglo-catholic style of worship then it's no wonder they left an evangelical/charismatic one. What about all the others who are still there? And what the **** is wrong with nurses and students?? the fact that they are mobile or what?

I'd get a lot less annoyed if you put in a few IMO's every now and then rather than just baldly stating a "fact". I am very tempted to denigrate certain aspects of high church style worship, but I won't because I know it means a lot to a lot of people. And even though I don't understand why, it does seem to help their faith. I know I am in danger of regretting something I say if I keep on in this manner, so I'll stop, and post, and cool off for a while.

I've just noticed there have been a couple of other posts on here since I started writing this.

Wood - you obviously don't like the sort of service that I appreciate, but you are altogether more reasonable. I respect that.

Dyfrig - good post, thanks. Put it way better than me. But I still don't know what HTB is.

Whew, calming down a bit now. Sorry for the ouburst. I'm not like this really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:
When I get my arse in gear I'll write an apologia for Anglican Catholicism. I've found that if you reason, listen and explain, you convert and not only that, you convert for good and not just while they're at university and lonely.
Cosmo

---

Have you missed our medication this morning, C?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cosmo:

I'm glad we were talking at cross purposes rather than just crossly. St Aldate's is an example of everything I dislike, parody and try to justify why I dislike it so. Yes, it's heaving, yes, it's superficially popular. But, it leaves a lot to be desired pastorally and theologically. When I was in Oxford there were several confirmed re-baptisms and public exorcisms there. That is not Anglicanism. Neither is it protestantism. That's almost a cult.

---

Oh dear. Despite the fact that I am in the process of leaving St Aldates - as many people will have figured out if they read the "moving church" thread in purgatory - I'm afraid I may have to say a few words in its defence.

I've been at Aldates for 5 years - and have yet to witness - or even here about - a public exorcism. Whilst they do allow those who have been baptised/confirmed to reaffirm their baptismal vows (and dunk them in the water at that time) they in no way believe that they rebaptise anyone. It is always made very clear at baptism services that you can't be baptised twice. I believe that the reaffirmation of baptismal vows is an Anglican rite which is available to anyone. I am however willing to be corrected.

Admittedly Aldates does leave something to be desired pastorally if one is not a student. However, there is nothing wrong with the fact that it is a popular church with students and hence has a high turnover in the congregation - most students are on 3 or 4 year courses. I have a lot of friends who were students here and attended Aldates and have now left, and all but one of them made finding a church a priority when they arrived in pastures new. They may not have stayed Anglican, but they certainly stayed within the Church in the broader sense.

In terms of theology, I've always been surprised by the range of views preached. Although with 4 pastors you're bound to get the odd nutty sermon, mostly the preaching is reasoned and well thought out. I have heard a vast range of theologians and churchmen quoted - from Karl Barth to St Augustine. (In many EA churches, using St Augustines writings to teach from would NOT go down well.)

I know it's a flawed church - currently those flaws are causing me to look elsewhere - but it's also a place where a lot of people learn more about God, and worship him with real love and enthusiasm.

I have chosen to try and learn more about Anglo-catholic churches - rather than spouting my no doubt ill-informed opinions. I would be grateful if those who wish to pass judgement on evangelical charismatic churches, would grant those of us who attend them the same favour.

All the best,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
You don't think these are signs of the End Times, do you Stephen?

---

I think the previous discussion (while interesting) is a perfect example.

I know which church I would take what friend to, which one would have my skateboarding friends asleep or feeling uncomfortable with the middleclassness, and i know which ones would have my fellow phd students freaking out at the wierdos around them.

different strokes for different folks.

But please stop the bickering, that DOES put people off church. And its not even bickering really there is a lack of love, 'because you are one others will know that I live', 'love one another as I have loved you'.

At work I am continually told, 'i wont believe in God because it is just a reason to hate, see how many wars religion has started'.

For example, I can think of two parishes with which I had involvement, both of which (at least at the time) were very friendly, comfortable places. Looking back, neither church had any extensive "socialising efforts" - though there were parish gatherings, a nice coffee hour, various things in which people could become involved if they wished, there were no clubs, organisations, organised apostolic works and the like. Yet I've seen parishes where huge efforts to get something going for the young - the elderly - the "singles" - the young parents, etc. were huge flops. In one place where I served (not a particularly large parish), many people were involved even with such things as keeping the building clean... until one well-intentioned lady decided to "organise" it. People who had come nearly every week did not want to have to commit to be there once a month.

We also need to be careful about assuming that a parish that has an increased membership "has the answer," and try to duplicate it - because we never really know reasons. In one case of which I knew, Parish A and Parish B were quite close to one another, and it appeared that Parish B must have something special going on because a substantial number of people moved from A to B. As it happened, the exodus was based largely on that the new vicar at A had a nasty wife who insulted everyone!

I've seen a summer programme for young people have attendance of over 100 for three years in a row, yet only a dozen in the fourth - parish socials that drew a crowd suddenly have a low attendance - study or social groups have the same thing happen. In fact, I've seen this in so many different, unrelated places that I'm positive there is no "answer." Yet the fact that, for example, the summer programme was successful previously (and assuming there was no real reason this changed) may well mean that the fourth summer was just a "slump" for some reason... Trying to change everything will not necessarily turn the tide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IrvinDYalom:
He respectfully offered this, only to be told by the leader that "we're not studying philosophy, we're studying Scripture/ the Word of God."

---

Years later I found a chapter of "Inter Varsity" had opened up there. The people who ran the Bible study were older -- neither had been to New College -- I think one had not been to college at all. And at this place where everyone discusses philosophy all the time, they didn't want people to bring "theology" into the Bible study. I was aghast and stopped going (I was a grad student on the same campus -- it was then connected to the University of South Florida, though recently is broken away).

A catechist came from another church - in the next suburb - and proceeded to do exactly what he had done there. While it worked there, it failed miserably with us and alientated a lot of people.

Some examples of how to put people off from experience:

- limit Youth Group to school age and not-so-subtly hint Uni students / young workers are not welcome. We had our own group; we looked after ourselves; there was no where else central to meet; Friday night was good for us; and who do you think provided the majority of the offertory?

- have people who cannot read properly doing the reading: I do not expect the Queen's English but I expect people to be able to speak clearly, audibly and recognise punctuation

- shove a Bible in their hand and go back to talking to your friend when a visitor arrives

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Aldates may IMHO be lacking in some respects, but at least it doesn't do THAT.

---

Thanks Joan for some very fair comments!

As you know from the moving church thread, I am also very much aware that St Aldates is lacking in various respects, but they do treat everyone as human beings first, rather than potential converts.

There's a lot of variation in theology in the church, and that's something we can accept and - actually - enjoy. The criticisms which are levelled at evangelical christmatic churches are rarely based on any detailed discussion of our theology and far more often on false impressions that have been garnered by people who have taken only a cursory glance at how we live and worship. That's what makes me angry.

Thanks again Joan - and if you want to argue about evangelical theology I'll see you in purgatory! But don't expect me to argue the St A's point of view on homosexuality, cos I don't agree with them. (Illustrating that despite 5 years at the church I am not a brainwashed clone!)

All the best,

Shake a money tin vigorously as the person enters the cathedral; then after it is ascertained they are going in for the service give the response, "Oh, do not worry about giving now. Give your money at the offertory time."!!!

My first church experience in Ireland, sadly.