An Open and Shut Case?

Light always casts a shadow. Exploring the shadow side of things requires energy and courage, but it can lead to new discoveries about the light. This year St John's congregation has accomplished a wonderful thing in raising the money to put a roof on our historic church. We give prayers of thanksgiving that we seem still to have a future, and a hopeful one at that. However the new roof does raise some uncomfortable questions. We have never before donated such an amount of money for any other cause, so it seems that the brick building which we call “church” must be very important. Why is the building important? Answering that question raises questions about the what is important in the church as institution and religious entity. What are we fundamentally about at St John's?

There is one uncomfortable fact we must face: our front doors are locked all the time except for the Sunday service. One may enter via the office but the front doors are locked 90% of the time. Yet we call ourselves an inclusive church, a welcoming church.

Of course there are very good reasons for locking the doors. We worry about vandalism and the safety of office staff. I think those concerns are valid but might be addressed by having more people in the building. Thinking along those lines could lead to all sorts of possibilities like having volunteers in the nave while the doors are unlocked. Could we allow some community groups to use the nave more often? That thought could lead to thoughts about whether we need all those pews. Recently some prominent elder members of the congregation have told me privately that they would be much more comfortable in chairs than in pews. I was surprised. Could we achieve more than one goal by removing some ( not all) the pews to create more flexible, comfortable seating? I don't know what the right answer should be but this sort of thinking can lead to many possibilities. Any increase in the hours that we are unlocked would be an improvement over our current practice.

The most scary scenario I can envision, however, would involve someone coming into the nave while out of control due to mental illness or drugs. We would need training and guidelines for volunteers and staff to deal with such a possibility. Who could best guide us? I don't honestly know if we could handle this. I don't know if I could handle this. I am afraid.

Some other downtown churches are open many more hours than are we. Christchurch Cathedral has a much larger paid custodial staff to back up its volunteer group and is thus able to be open on weekdays all year. St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church opens during the tourist season and has a minimum of three people in the nave during those times.

I do not have easy answers for us. I am at least as afraid as anyone else, but I would like us to begin the process of being dissatisfied with being locked nearly all the time. Thinking through to a solution is part of the fundamental work we must do in creating the church of the future. Is it enough to say that we are an aging congregation, stretched and already doing what we can? Are we merely being legitimately self-protective? If so, can we acknowledge that? Who is our membership? Whom would we honestly rather exclude? What do the theologians mean when they tell us that the opposite of love is not hate but fear?