I have written about this before, and will no doubt write about it again, but it is a subject that keeps returning in my reflections.

I believe that whatever questions we are asked, once we can no longer answer the mythical 2 year old’s “why”, we will each eventually come to a common answer for ourselves.  This works for people who have a faith, and for those who have none.

Not only do I think that we will reach that common answer for us, but that once we have discovered what that common answer is we can then predict our answer to many different issues of the day.

I also believe that it is this which causes so many of the differences between Christians.  For example, if at the heart we believe that “God loves everybody” that will lead to one set of conclusions, whereas if we start from “the Bible is the inspired word of God” it will lead to another.  I am not here saying that people who start from different places do not believe the words of the other place, just that which takes priority determines a number of outcomes.

So – what is at the heart of your faith?  If I were to keep asking why after every answer you give, what do you get when you no longer have an answer?

I remember over 35 years ago challenging the Provost of Chelmsford Cathedral about the proposed re-ordering, renovation of the organ, and creation of a choir endowment.  This was a substantial amount of money (I can’t remember how much) and I questioned whether it would be better spent on the poor.  His response was that for some people it is the architecture or the music that first draw them to church; at the time I think I was content to let this past.

However, this leads to the question of whether the relief of physical poverty should take precedence over spiritual poverty or vice versa.  Maslow’s hierarchy of needs clearly suggests that for an individual physical poverty has to be dealt with before spiritual poverty, but is this true for society?

The more I think about this the less sure I am.  I can see a case for saying that everybody should be raised up at the same rate, but I can also see a case for wondering whether, if some are raised further up the pyramid, it might speed up the rate at which others climb it.

Now, I accept that this is slightly different from the question about whether church money is better spent on churches or people, but not perhaps that much.

The other issue is where the money comes from; whether we like it or not there are large sums of money available for buildings which aren’t available for poor people (eg the Heritage Lottery Fund – whatever else you may think of that).

Different people respond to different issues in different ways.  I know of churches where people will give to the fabric fund rather than the general fund; and if any parish priest were to suggest closing a church…

For me the question boils down to whether it is effective (pragmatist that I am).  And I don’t know the answer to that.  Where do you stand?

Recently General Synod spent a good deal of time debating Evangelism – and what is not to like?  Well, a number of people were concerned that what was meant was too focused on getting the initial sale and not enough on repeat business (my words).  So here and here.

In any sales process there is a funnel – lots of people get fed in at the top but only a few  become customers.

I used to work in a business which was looking for repeat customers.  It wasn’t a supermarket, but that is a good example.  The reason that supermarkets, and online ones in particular, are so keen to get you to buy from them is the potential for repeat business.  There are all sorts of incentives to buy from them again, from the explicit (money off vouchers on future purchases) to the implicit (you know your way round the physical or online store).

1.2 million people have done an Alpha course in the UK, but average Sunday attendance is about 722,000.  This isn’t knocking Alpha courses; we have the same problem in this parish – people come to a seekers course but drop off at varying stages through the process.

Most of the emphasis on Evangelism appears to be on getting people in the first place.  I would want to suggest that increasing the retention rate would be a better area of focus.  Something is drawing people in and they become enthusiastic, but they do not stay that way.

What is needed is a successful Beta course (there have been a number of attempts, some even called Beta Course!), but this appears to be a difficult nut to crack as they have existed for 15 years or more, but haven’t had the traction of Alpha.

What seems to me to be successful are the relationships built, but if you are running lots of the courses you need lots of people to build relationships – almost in an apprenticeship style.  Recruiting lots of apprentices when you don’t have the master craftsworkers to train them is surely a waste of time?

worship is a unique one-off never to be repeated beautiful offering, and so needs to be the best it possibly can be

https://www.leadingyourchurchintogrowth.org.uk/keep-sunday-special

I recently saw this quote and initially found myself wanting to challenge it.  Having revisited it I find myself almost letting it off the hook because of the “possibly”.

My challenge to it is around the definition of “best it can possibly be”.  We used to have a diocesan advisor who used to say “if a thing is worth doing it is worth doing badly”!  But of course the question is “whose definition of badly”?  Is it the accurate reading, the “proper” pronunciation and the audibility that make a reading the best it possibly can be?  Or is it someone prepared to step out in faith and offer the reading as best they can?

Is worship something performed “perfectly” by the few for the many or is it something that all of God’s people do for God?

There is probably no definitive answer to this (as with most things Anglican).

So, a couple of stories…

Many years ago I used to attend Chelmsford Cathedral, usually the 9:30 Parish Eucharist.  One Sunday I didn’t get up in time, so instead went to the 11:00 Cathedral Eucharist, during which I said or sung very little.  Afterwards I asked the Provost about this and he said that the aim of that service was for the choir and clergy to do the worship giving us space to have our own meeting with God (I paraphrase somewhat, and as with all preachers it may not be what he said, but what I heard).

At one of our churches we have no rotas (not quite true, but almost) and as people come in they pick up a card on which is written a role in the service.  The president doesn’t know who has which card, and sometimes the person with the card isn’t quite sure when their bit comes.  A culture of collaboration has developed and at various points in the service a member of the congregation might join in – particularly during the sermon.

It strikes me that perhaps the first service suits introverts more, and the second extroverts.  What worried me about the quote was that it was privileging the first kind of worship over the second, but perhaps the second is “the best it possibly can be”.