Locked Churches

My recent holiday on the South Coast gave me plenty of scope for pottering about the countryside looking at old buildings. Staying in the little village of Sopley, right on the border of Hampshire and Dorset, I was within walking distance of a fine medival church, which was kept open. On the Monday, I decided to walk to neighbouring Bisterne. The church there, on the edge of the park of a fine mansion, is a Victorian Gothic creation (pictured). It was, however, locked, somewhat to my frustration, since I'd walked two miles to get there. I am not the only person to feel that keeping a church locked is a bad idea, in fact, Ecclesiastical Insurance prefers churches to be left open where possible, as this lessens the risk of the glass being broken to gain entry. It also makes the place feel a lot more welcoming.

But why should this be so? Well, for one thing it does satisfy the curious. It also serves to remind the community that the church in question is still operating. In this day and age a noticeboard may simply indicate that a congregation have not updated it, rather like many websites. The Cardiff Unitarians, for example, still advertise their premises in West Grove, when the place was sold over a year ago, and is now occupied by a charismatic group.


But what of the Nonconformists? Most Chapels are closed, although the Methodist Chapel in Aylsham and the Congregational Chapel at Denton, in Norfolk, are welcome exceptions. Personally, I feel that to be a problem as well. I well remember ringing a chapel annex doorbell in York in order to view a Wesleyan Chapel. In terms of witness, i does rather help to be welcoming. Of course, this isn't always possible. Where vandalism is a present danger, or where an open church would be an invitation to anti-social behaviour, this clearly can't be done.

This is the case in a small minority of places, however. And it is not the remote churches. For example, Kingston Lacey in Dorset declares that 'due to the remote location of the church it must regrettably be kept locked.' In that case it really was bosh. The place was crawling with visitors, and that on a day when the house was closed! Theft from the church would have been as impossible as a theft from a city centre building! The truth is that this was nerves, nothing more. Besides, the really remote buildings are at little danger from thieves unless they contain treasures, such as church plate. The places at the greatest risk are those places located on the edge of housing estates, such as Llanederyn, Cardiff, where if the building is not locked local youths from the Coucil estate tend to cause damage. That is, places remote enough not to be overlooked by houses, but not remote enough for vandals to pay them unwelcome attention.

Ideally, all churches and chapels should display keyholder notices, at the very least. Every church has retired members who would be able to take care of such things. Gestapo-like interrogations should not be required to get hold of keys from keyholders, for that matter. Open days are far from ideal, especially in the summer months where the casual visitor may be a holidaymaker who will not be able to return on the day in question.

And church guidebooks ought to be provided. A double-sided sheet of A4 doesn't cost that much to produce. Besides, in my experience, most chapels have a surplus of centenary histories, if they produced one, and following this advice might be a good way to shift them.

Christianity and Politics

After an almost week-long church camp/holiday at Sopley, just outside Christchurch, Dorset, I returned late last night to see images of Barak Obama, US Presidential candidate, speaking to the Democratic National Convention. Obama is not only the first black man to be nominated for President by a major party, he is also a self-described Christian.

What made this experience so wonderfully odd was that on Camp, as we studied Romans 13, we had discussed the matter of Christian involvement in politics. While I was not present at the Bible study in which a missionary and a doctor had a heated debate on the rights and wrongs on attempting to change the world by political means, our Bible study was still fairly interesting. What stood out most there was the differing attitiudes to political involvement. And the fact that active partisans of the two major UK parties were there, as well as people who do not vote, having given up on it all.

To start with, let me declare a few interests. I am a voter, as well as a former political candidate for the Conservative Party, having stood for the city council at the invitation of the party. Thus I cannot believe that to abstain from politics is a Christian duty.

Nor, however, do I believe that the kingdom of God will come as a result of political action. If there was a Conservative government tomorrow, it would be flawed and would do a great many foolish things, just as the present Government does. Why? Because we are fallen creatures. So, a few observations.

1. The position of total abstention from political life for all Christians is untenable. If a Christian can't take political action to change things because of the nature of the system, then St. Paul's words about submission should guide them. But in a democracy, part of paying tribute to Caesar is voting for him. If you have a say, use it.

2. Christians must not have unrealistic ideas about what they can achieve. The law cannot make people good. It can, if properly enforced and widely accepted, restrain evildoers. The example of Prohibition in the USA should be enough to convince us of that. If we had a Cabinet of Christians, they would still be fettered by the limits of the popular will. God's kingdom, in terms of his physical rule over all the world will not come about as a result of political action by Christians.

3. Ministers as ministers should not take an active part in politics, and especially not party politics. That is not their calling. If a minister feels his true calling is to be a social activist or a politician, then he ought to resign from the ministry. I have the greatest of respect for the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley, but I believe that his combining the roles of preacher and politician was wrong, and has hurt the cause of Christ in Northern Ireland. Church of England Clergymen used to be barred from standing for election to the House of Commons. I believe the principle, although not the method, was correct. And this should go for elders and deacons as well. A pastor who makes party political prnouncements from the pulpit should be disciplined, and one who does so on a regular basis should be asked whether he has not, in fact, mistakne his calling.

4. Most political issues are secondary matters. While there are many issues on which consistent Christians would be agreed, policies such as whether there should be a minimum wage, or public/private partnerships are not issues on which the Bible makes dogmatic pronouncemts, therefore neither should we.

5. Christians are not obligated to vote for a particular candidate simply because he or she is a Christian. If a person normally votes Labour because they are in agreement with the economic or social policies of the Labour Party, I would not expect them to vote for a Tory simply because they happen to be a Church Member and a Christian. Of course, in a crisis, or an atmosphere where penal laws were likely to pe passed against Christians, then the situation would change. Equally, to vote for a Christian from another party, one would have to know that on issues such as homosexuality and abortion, this Christan would have the strength not to follow the lead of the party whip.

6. Political views should never be made a test of fellowship. The church should be a microcosm of society, and that means that it should contain members who hold to a wide spectrum of political views. Within reason, of course.

this list of thoughts is not by any means exhaustive, but a guide to what I think should be the attitude of the individual Christian should be to political involvement. I shall be writing more on the matter in due course.