April / May 2002 |
Letters |
![]() |
Dear Editor, The vicar’s letter to the last edition of ‘Out of Reach’ says (1) that hardly anyone goes to church now – it is ‘thin-going’ (2) that the church is going to spend substantially on the porch and the vestry (3) that the money should guarantee the future of the church in Reach pastorally as well as financially and (4) that its not the vicar’s church ‘it’s ours’. The inconsistencies are breathtaking. Let me point to some of them First, if it’s our church why weren’t we told how much money there was and consulted about it should be spent? Second, in sheer logic, can it be right to spend so much money on developing – as against maintaining a building to which hardly any one goes and for which the pattern of services is to be ‘reviewed’ ? Third, how can a church which should presumably pay some heed to the teachings of its Founder, possibly see this work as a prime need in a world beset by poverty? Fourth, how can the money guarantee the future of the church pastorally – assuming that by that is meant that if the building is improved more people will come? No doubt others could point to other inconsistencies. But the only conclusions overall which one can draw from the letter are that muddled thinking pervades the church and, as I have suggested before, that it has no interest in, or care for, ordinary people. If it did it would consult us on matters as fundamental as the building and make the building available for a range of uses. One possible use would be the development of a forum in which people could reflect on life, share perceptions as to its purpose and encourage each other to develop themselves and their natural abilities to the full without preconception. But I fear that I am crying for the moon. The church is not interested in change. Nothing has happened since my last letter and my friend Charles Moseley’s reply to it suggests that he considers it enough that the church is useful to the Christians; also, remarkably, - and notwithstanding Paul - that it cannot change. Better to die than change, seems to be the current message. Whatever happens, for those who need a sacred space the earth is always there Yours sincerely, Philip Lewis |
More Sequences (Answers on Page 18)
|
Next Page | Main Menu | Contents | Previous Page |