As I mentioned in yesterday's post, I finally sent my discussion topic off to ministries council. It turns out no-one else has replied to 121 yet! And with only 3 weeks to go. I thought I was cutting it fine! It's a relief, though; it means I don't have to come up with another topic. Just as well really, I couldn't think of anything else!
Oh, the topic is "Is the traditional church building out of date?"? I figured this is not too controversial (fatal last word, I know), it's a topic everyone can relate too and it's open to a broad range of views. So, I hope it'll make a good topic.
My initial thoughts are:
Yes because.
They cost a fortune to run and the skills to maintain them are becoming unavailable.
Good stewardship means that we have an obligation to spend our time, talents and money to benefit those less well off than us. More money spent on buildings means less for the poor.
They are often located in inaccessible places, and not at the centre of the community, where the layout can make it inaccessible for disabled people.
Modern buildings can be constructed to include the screens, projectors and audio systems used in modern worship.
No because.
They look like churches – people seeking God can go to the building that is identifiable as a church.
A traditional church building has a presence that a modern building often does not have.
Through grant assistance, we should be using our buildings to revitalise craft industries and to bring employment and training to the unemployed
“I was baptised in that building, married in that building, and I’ll be buried there.” (Fine, but it would be nice if you bothered your bottom visiting in the intervening period - might not bring that one up, though!)
These are rough thoughts and need expanding. And, before Mr Gerbil comments, I have "borrowed" the typing from him.
I'm still swithering which side to be on. Generally, I'm a bit more in favour of keeping traditional buildings, so long as they are used and serve the community. After all, the parish kirk is supposed to serve its parish.
So, what do others think? I'd love to gather thoughts, ideas etc.
Good topic. Plenty to get your teeth into and with enough of a variety of opinions and issues to keep a discussion going. You don't need to be on any side, although you may be asked your opinion.
ReplyDeleteSome other issues to consider: many churches are listed buildings which means you can't simply lock the door and walk away from them; carbon footprint - with the targets set by GA, maybe now's the time to ditch poorly insulated, uneconomic buildings, for more modern, eco-friendly ones.
Echo what John said re. not needing to be on any side. Your job is to present a topic for discussion, and then chair that discussion, trying to make sure all feel able to participate/ are listened to. Think of it as bringing up an item for discussion at kirk session/ congregational board and know that in the brief time you have you ain't necessarily going to come to any world shattering decisions. This latter is rather liberating, actually :)
ReplyDeleteRemember, while it is good to express your opinion within the discussion, they are also looking at how you allow other opinions to be heard. Are you listening? Being too dismissive? Shutting down discussion by using closed questioning style? Enabling discussion by using open-ended styles that elicit more than 'yes' 'no' answers? Why not have a practice run with Mr Gerbil, if he's up for it... good to have a bit of a 'dry-run' maybe and get over nerves?
Go gurrrl!! :)
I'm in favour of selective arson.
ReplyDeleteThe points made are all good but I tend to think this is one of those arguements that only works on a case by case basis. Because of that I'm also enclined to say that the arguement isn't trad v modern, it's appropriate v inappropriate.
Some traditional buildings are sound, adaptable and serve a purpose. Some modern buildings are falling to bits and badly designed.