Pointless Church Disputes and the 'Van Halen Theory'

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a minister in want of a good fight with his congregation need only fiddle with the seating arrangements.


In two previous church communities which I have been involved with disputes have broken out because the minister in charge had what he thought were very good reasons for changing the seating arrangements. Such a 'minor' issue was interpreted by both congregations as a Blasphemy of the Highest Order (in one case the issue was dropped, in the other a reasonable compromise was reached). Others in pastoral work whom I have spoken to about this have assumed an expression of mutual suffering and black humour. I have been wondering again recently as to why church seating in all its forms is an acknowledged Live Fuse.

The less-generous explanation that is usually trotted out (usually by overstressed ministers) is that the laity (unlike the clergy) are people of Worldly Habit whose dislike of interference with their personal space stems from Unacknowledged Sin and Immaturity. Their aversion to change shows that the Gospel is not Priority #1. It's not as though we were asking them to wear hair shirts or walk barefoot to Canterbury. If only our people were more Godly they would know not to make a Pointless Dispute about such an issue.

Despite such an argument being extremely condescending, my main problem is that it is often personally inconsistent. It is made to apply even to those who would normally be counted as our most devoted Partners and thereby fosters an atmosphere of suspicion. Is there another explanation, one more generous to those we pastor and encourage week to week regarding the state of their Immortal Souls?

I have come up with 'The Van Halen Theory'.

Those of you unlucky enough to have been born in the Gen-Y time span probably don't realise the impact Eddie and the boys had on rock 'n roll in the 1980s. They were Huge. When their debut album dropped in 1978 Eddie Van Halen made all other guitar heroes not surnamed Hendrix instantly irrelevant. Stadium tour after stadium tour then followed made up of the most slammin' hard rock imaginable backed with a massive lighting and pyrotechnical display. Then there was the infamous Rider...

In their list of personal and technical requirements given to venues/promoters before each concert, Van Halen included one item that has gone into rock legend: a bowl of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed. At the time this was seen as another example of rock royalty excess. Yet, when asked about it later, the band and their management revealed quite a different motive than simply to play with the caterer's mind. The logic went that, since such a large and technical production was being put on night after night, attention to detail was essential. In particular, the health and safety of those working in the road crew was paramount as there was so much that could go wrong. Therefore, if the band walked into their dressing room and found the M&M clause unfulfilled (in whole or in part) they might rightly ask the question: What else has been screwed up around here?

If we wanted to be generous (and I think there is licence for being so) we might say that our church seating has become the laity's M&M clause. I think that most every congregation recognises some change to be a good thing and would probably rejoice if the contract for the supply of Arnott's Family Assorted was not renewed. Yet at some point a Meaningless Change can signify Significant Change, and it looks like the zeitgeist has decided that the seats are where our congregations have drawn the line. The thought runs: If the seats are getting moved around this week, what is this guy going to start saying about Jesus next week?

Opposition to chair-moving typically comes as a shock to the humble cleric, who sees no reason why this should be the Heresy Marker, but it really should not be if he has taken into account the compact of Spatial Responsibility. Laity and Clergy (in the Anglican system at least) have a compact to defend the Gospel in their gatherings. The Minister takes responsibility for the Pulpit and Table (and a Choir if he is really unlucky). The Laity also proclaims the Gospel in the meeting, but in a different way and different space. When a young man dons the collar he fundamentally Changes Space, and therefore inherits an insensibility to the perspective of his sheep. Things that Don't Matter to him Matter very much to the saints whom he expects to listen patiently to his droning on too long in the pulpit week-by-week.

Imagine, for a moment, that a minister of a fairly Low parish should be confronted at the next vestry meeting by a popular vote to install two plain candlesticks on the Table. Now, candles are very nice and I use them myself whenever a Romantic Atmosphere is required in the home. It also may be argued that a simple light on the Table might draw attention to the True Light during or sacramental celebrations. For all the plausible arguments that might be made, there are probably not many Evangelical Anglican ministers whose hackles would not arise at the intrusion of such a Symbol of Popery on his table. Next week it might be incense, icons, prayers to Mary, offerings for the dead!

Now consider how your poor parishioner feels about you stealing his seat.

I throw it out there as a theory. You've heard me bang on too long. If you've bothered to read right through you may now reward yourself by watching this.