Album Review: "Unity" by Garage Hymnal

[Disclaimer: The author is married to a backing singer on Garage Hymnal’s debut album, Take My Life.]

The rise of Garage Hymnal as a major contributor to the local worship music scene has been nothing short of impressive. Their 2006 debut, Take My Life, was a slightly patchy affair, born out of the environment of a loose collaboration of musicians bound by a healthy dose of raw talent and a delight in the Word of God. Nevertheless, it boasted several strong moments (the title track and “Rejoice” in particular) that signalled that these were a young bunch to keep an eye on. By the time of their self-titled release of 2009 the group had coalesced into a much tighter unit, with the focus on the honeyed lead vocals of Alana Rodgers and Stephanie Vanden Hengel. Sonically the group offered delightful tunes that betrayed the influences of modern pop rock (e.g. Coldplay, Evermore, Something For Kate) and quirky indie (e.g. Architecture In Helsinki).

However, by this stage it was clear that they band had grown into a different kind of “worship band”. While spins on Christian Radio increased, precious few of the band’s songs made it into widespread congregational use (with the possible exceptions of their home churches). Is it possible that Garage Hymnal were making a genre switch from Worship Music to Christian Pop?

Perhaps in an attempt to ‘get back to their roots’, Garage Hymnal elected to make Album #4, Unity, a live album. Not only that, but it was to be recorded at St Stephen’s Anglican Church, a traditional edifice amid the hip grunginess of Newtown. Their website says that Unity...

“...offers twelve new songs for churches to sing together. Centred around the theme of our life together as a church, this album is a passionate prayer for unity...”

It is also a strong bid for mainstream acceptance of their worship vision.

While live worship albums have on the increase in recent years, following on the success of the Hillsong and Sovereign Grace teams, it is worth remembering that such recordings have been popular ever since the days of Thomas A. Dorsey. Yet bringing a set of new songs in front of a live audience and counting on their enthusiastic support is an act of courage. Judging by the applause, Garage Hymnal seemed to have had no trouble winning over their crowd on this occasion.

In keeping with its title, the lyrics on Unity abound with plural pronouns. The songs remind the listener that individual salvation has both contemporary and eternal communal applications. Worship is not restricted to my heart or voice, but only when the voices of the elect are joined together is Christ truly honoured. We live together, we worship together, we expect together...

Unity grounds part of its message in an homage to Christian worship of past generations. The adaption of Charles Wesley’s lyrics in “Psalm 140” isn’t revolutionary, but the theological focus on the uplifting of Christian affections through the work of Christ is most welcome (particularly following the recent visit of John Piper). “We Praise You” on the other hand taps into a more ancient stream through its reworking of the Te Deum, revealing a maturity and knowledge of worship history that is encouraging. Unfortunately, “Fairest Lord Jesus” (based on a 19th Century translation of lyrics from German Jesuits) has roots more in Romanticism than Scripture, and the winsome vocals make the song more than a little twee.

The original songs on offer follow a theme of faithful perseverance while awaiting eschatological redemption. “Unity” takes its cue from Jn 17:11 in applying Trinitarian relationships to the proper expression of Christian unity. “Stand Firm” reminds of the necessity of waiting together for the return of Christ in faith. The fact that there is no Penal Substitution song does not mean that the cross is absent, but rather the death and resurrection of Jesus are the unspoken foundation of present hope.

Musically, this album aims for high standards and unquestionably delivers. Arrangements are tight, with the piano and guitar interplay of Andy Judd and Greg Cooper tastefully done. Perhaps the greatest strength of the album is that the lyrics consistently scan well and are emotionally engaging. For example, the opening verse of “Sunday Came”:

Sunday came, darkness hides in shame
Desert plains, greet the morning sun
Mourn no more, feel the rising joy
Hearts revived, dust returns to life

Pure poetry!

So, if all that is true, why am I less than enthusiastic about this album?

First, there are sonic problems. Producer David Nicholas has an impressive pedigree, but the high ceilings of the recording location have produced a cavernous echo that results in a sonic wash which obscures many delicate musical moments (particularly in the quiet passages). While echo worked for Pink Floyd in Pompeii it doesn’t work so well for Garage Hymnal in Newtown. Another issue (common to live worship albums) is that the audience applause often intrudes on the beginning of songs, making it awkward for under-resourced churches who may rely on recorded music to lead their congregations.

But, more importantly, I am unconvinced that Unity has achieved its stated goal. Garage Hymnal wanted to make a Contemporary Worship album; what they made was another Christian Pop album.

A music co-ordinator who is keen to find appropriate material to introduce to their congregation will find the pickings on Unity sadly slim. Melodies are not well developed and are unnecessarily syncopated. The result is that those songs which are potentially singable would require too much work by a time-poor worship leader to rearrange with no guarantees that a congregation would pick up the tunes easily. The songs are undeniably catchy, but more “sing along in the car” than “worship together in church”. This is a shame, as Garage Hymnal is better than a Sydney Anglican version of Cold Chisel.

Garage Hymnal’s track record suggests that they have the potential to make a great contemporary worship album. Sadly, Unity ain’t it. As it is, this is still a fine collection of tunes that would be perfect for your next carpool up to Katoomba.

Hebrews 10:25 and Confidence In Christ

If you had to pick the Top Christian Guilt Trip Verse, I reckon Hebrews 10:25 would at least make the short list. Beloved of pastors and Bible Study Leaders everywhere, this verse is likely to appear in any conversation that begins with the words, "Soooo...where were you last Sunday?"

Any absence from regular fellowship can be elegantly dealt with by appealing to this remarkable proof-text. The wayward sheep will be rebuked by the plain words of Scripture and will (hopefully) return to an acceptable attendance pattern.

But to what exact situation does Hebrews 10:25 refer? What is the cessation in meeting that the writer is warning his readers against? Can this verse be used as a catch-all for the spiritually slack?

In his very thorough commentary Peter O'Brien admits that the exact circumstances of those who have ceased fellowship are not clear, though the fact that the writer has raised the "falling away" issue several times previously (and will do so again later) shows that apostasy was likely to have been a pressing concern for the Jewish-Christian receivers of the letter. O'Brien suggests factors such as persecution, indifference or apathy can be broadly implied from the text. While these issues probably played a role in halting regular meeting, I am of the opinion that the most important issue for these apostates was a lack of Confidence In Christ.

The stress on Jesus as the New and Better High Priest in Hebrews is hard to ignore. In fact, once the writer has reminded the Jewish Christians of the basics of belief, chapters 5-10 are devoted almost exclusively to this issue. A viable scenario is that a lack of a cultic system or priesthood in this new Christian movement would have given those believers of a Jewish background a certain amount of unease. For centuries the descendants of Abraham had relied on a Levitical priesthood to intercede with God on their behalf. The ceremonies and duties were strict - a failure to follow them correctly would have resulted in a break in fellowship with God. Now these Christians seem to have done away with all of the ritual rigmarole - no priests, no sacrifices, no incense, no ritual washings. Was God going to accept this as proper worship? Was the holiness of the Creator being denied? Maybe it would be better if we left these Christians to their hymns and prayers and brought a nice lamb to the Temple Priest to make sure God is going to accept us...

As I have been leading my weekly Bible studies on Hebrews, it occurs to me that the advocation of Jesus as the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek appears to have been for the sake of restoring confidence to those Christians who were struggling with the lack of cultic practices. It was hard to believe, given the strict nature of the Mosaic regulations, that God could be happy with simply Faith Alone. There would have been many who were Just Not Sure, and so they needed reassurance.

What does this have to do with the use of 10:25 in our age? Well, I believe that this verse is not the Rebuke To The Self-Indulgent that it so often becomes. Instead it is the reassurance to those whose confidence in Christ is wavering, for those who feel burdened with sin, and those who feel that God does not hear their prayers.

I have been challenged in the last few days by Scripture to be very careful as to how I use Hebrews 10:25 pastorally from now on. Don't get me wrong - if someone isn't at church for no better reason than they went to see the Tigers lose again then they should definitely receive a boot in the backside. I'll just use other verses of Scripture to do it and instead save Hebrews 10:25 for the person who needs their confidence in Christ reaffirmed.

Tools and Carbon Taxes

When I comes to climate change I believe that I am neither an alarmist nor a skeptic.

Having done a bit of science at university level, I am aware that there is precious little about scientific knowledge that could be deemed Uncontested. Absolute scientific proof can usually only be determined in Controlled Lab Conditions, something that the global atmosphere distinctly lacks. Scientific tests can give at best imperfect results when attempting to prove abstract theories in Real Life. Moreover, long range climate predictions given by scientists who have only the vaguest idea as to whether it will rain next Tuesday need to be taken with a large shaker of salt.

On the other hand, it is only common sense that an increasing global population that consumes a growing percentage of natural resources and is only moderately interested in cleaning up after itself may have some negative impact on future generations. It would be nice, if not polite, to at least make some attempt at considering consequences and acting appropriately.

It seems as if the weight of Conventional Wisdom in our antipodean nation has swung towards the idea of a Carbon Tax as THE way to curb carbon emissions into the future. Levels of carbon emissions over a certain amount by the Big Polluters will incur a government levy under this scheme, the idea being that companies want to keep their running costs low and so will avoid behavior that lands them with a large Pay Now Or Else bill from Ms Gillard. If there is to be a solution to environmental Armageddon then it must come by and through the Market, the final arbitrator of all that is Good and Right in our modern times. Economic experts are almost unanimous, we are told, in declaring that this will be the most Cost Effective way of lowering greenhouse pollution in our nation.

So why am I uncomfortable about all this?

The story starts in my granddad's shed. Pa spent most of his retirement years making furniture out of wood (one of his chairs has a special place in my office). The beauty of his handiwork was partially achieved through personal skill, but just as important was the use of the right tool for the right job. Pa impressed this upon me from an early age, and the sheer number of tools in his workshop was a testimony to his belief in this principle. Using, for example, a spanner to knock in a nail would not only produce a dodgy job but would also damage the tool so that it could not do the job that it was made to do.

My point is this: trusting in Economics to solve a Social Problem is a case of using the wrong tool for the job at hand.

The way that economists and politicians (not only from the Left) talk you would be forgiven for mistaking the Market and Society for the same thing. This is a bleed from early 20th Century socialists, who had no problem in reducing individuals to the status of economic units. It is assumed that what is good for the Market must, by definition, be good for Society. If society needs a little tweak of its direction, then it is only natural that a push of the economic tiller will adjust our social direction.

I didn't do much study in economics in high school or any at all at university, but there is one thing that appears blatantly clear: the only function that the Market has in this world is Making Money.

Markets are under no obligation to fix the environment. Share prices don't care if you bought a hybrid car or a 4WD. Balance sheets aren't interested in whether the polar ice caps are melting. Corporate boards do not serve secondary agendas, only the bottom line. Implying that a federal tax on an aspect of business production will necessarily deliver the social change desired is a Hit And Hope scenario of major proportions. It's using the wrong tool for the job. In fact, it's worse than that, as it is using the tool most likely to deliver the opposite outcome from the one intended.

A carbon tax places the responsibility for environmental solutions in the hands of those that even the politicians admit are principally responsible for the present situation. It requires corporations to be proactive in cutting emissions rather than simply passing on associated costs and eventually to trade carbon credits as a viable commodity (one that has had a distinctly rocky track record where it has been tried so far). The only way this ends is with those already with Market Power growing stronger while the government rakes in more money from the pockets of working Australians while crowing about The National Interest. Local innovation and small business will be crushed under the weight of higher prices across the board. Those who have swallowed the socialist view of Market=State, whether they currently sit on the Left or Right, are equally responsible.

Surely the more prudent approach should be to take the power away from the corporate giants who have no vested interest in change and instead place it where it will achieve lasting results: community solutions arising from local innovation and small business. Economic regions must be given the power to decide what is in the best interest of those living within them rather than the interests of international corporations or foreign investors. Development grants for clean energy research and implementation need to be front and centre. Planning for energy generation needs to be taken out of central administration and given to those who know their areas best - wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear solutions could be possible while making long-term investments in regional education, thereby cutting reliance on Chinese or American conglomerates.

We need to think Smaller not Bigger. The disadvantages to this way of doing things are obvious: it will cost more and take longer. This is true. But didn't our parents always tell us that if something was worth doing it was worth doing right the first time? There is a reason that old growth forest logging has endured so long - it's Cost Effective! It's easier and cheaper to chop down an old tree than plant a new one and wait for it to grow. This is where Market Forces always let us down.

Those on the Left love centralized solutions because it feeds their need for total social control and those on the Right can be happy to go along with it if it makes their rich mates happy in the meantime. But the time has passed for self-interest. Along with looming environmental challenges, Australia faces a growing concern for its economic independence, with the manufacturing sector battered at every turn and growing rates of youth unemployment.

The answer for our environment lies in communities taking ownership of how they are impacting their environment and harnessing the know-how of those who have a vested interest in success. The solution is in our youth, who demonstrate again and again that they care about the future of their planet and are champing at the bit for an opportunity to make a difference. The solution is in local business and community empowerment, together a mighty combination that could move mountains if given enough room to show what they could do.

This is why I hope our leaders vote No on a Carbon Tax. Not only is it the wrong tool for the job, it would destroy the only tools we have that could do the job properly.

The Church Planters: A Musical

(Apologies to all for my lack of inspiration over the last month. Apologies also to Mr Brooks for this sudden burst of inspiration!)

OK, lemme pitch ya this for a plotline. Think we could get it made?

A worn out church planter sits in his midtown office counting his woes. His last few church plants have not been successful and the current state of diocesan poverty makes it unlikely that he will succeed again. The arrival of a financial whiz-kid who dreams of the glamourous life of a church planter heralds a new dawn.

The kid explains that, with a little "Creative Accounting", it is possible for a church plant that flops to make more money than one that succeeds if donations/pledges exceed evangelism expenditure. The elder sees the possibilities in an instant and embraces the young man with glee.

Together they start on a massive fundraising drive while simultaneously constructing a church model that is Doomed To Fail. They decide that the essentials for such a church will be:

• A distant relationship with the Jesus of the Bible. If people heard the truth of his teaching they would be convicted of sin and turn to God in repentance. You can't escape from Jesus, so best to say that he was a mystic-hippie with a primarily socio-political agenda (like so many others before and since). No-one will fall for that one!


• Making the Gospel all about The Self. Why would people come to a church that just tells them what they already believe?


• Promote ungodly virtues. Emphasise at all times Success over Suffering, Choice over Obedience, Greed over Contentment, Experience over Wisdom, Pleasure over Joy.


• Teachers who are personally distant and logically incoherent. No-one will follow them.


• Make the people work for God's Grace. Only if they sing louder, slave harder, and give more will they be worthy of salvation. If you can convince them that there is a Higher Level that only the most Spiritual can achieve then so much the better!
  

The church planters then start such a gathering, convinced that no-one would belong to a church that bore such scant resemblence to the faith of the apostles...

To their dismay, the church is the Runaway Hit Of The Season! People arrive in droves, keen to get a spiritual pick-me-up without the need for radical personal change. The faithful saints who had given money now demand its return, unwilling to be associated with such rank apostacy a moment longer. The church planters, caught between a rock and a hard place, are forced to continue their Runaway Hit in order to stay ahead of their creditors. The show ends with them bewailing their amazing success.

Pink Floyd, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Power of Prayer

It appears that Roger Waters is about to bring his recent production of The Wall to Australian shores after successful tours around America and Europe. Despite the overwhelming commercial success of Dark Side Of The Moon, it is The Wall that is closest to Waters' heart and the work that embodies his philosophical and artistic vision. This fact alone should alert the world to the fact that the composer/author may be more than a little sociopathic with shades of paranoia. If you need confirmation, go ask David Gilmour.

However, the truth is that The Wall is more than Waters' dream. It is also the soul-cry of the Baby Boomer Generation as it is hounded by its twin fears of Economic Depression and World War. In the story a young man, Pink, suffering from the loss of his father in war and the harsh austerity of English society, attempts to find fulfilment through rock music. As his star rises he finds his isolation growing, represented by a huge wall that separates musicians from audience. Finally, Pink lashes out at his situation and breaks down the wall, but the truth is that this is a Utopia Moment. Destroying the social disconnection means surrendering significant personal power, something which is anathema to Waters and his generational contemporaries. This is evident also in the spiritual choices of that generation and those subsequent - conformity to traditional structures is forsaken in favour of "my own path to God". Despite the often fair criticisms of traditional religion, it is clear that Western culture continues to drift even further away from God and true community. The Wall remains standing...

My own studies have led me to read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, a controversial figure from the late 1st Century AD. Some have seen in his writings evidence of a firm ecclesiastical hierarchy with the presence of an aposotolically appointed bishop as the safeguard of Christian unity. It is true that Ignatius had a very tidy mind when it came to church polity and wanted proper respect shown to those placed in positions of authority. Those who see the seeds of a One-Denomination-For-All-The-World position equated with that of the early church I believe misread Ignatius' intention, which could be accurately summarised as, "Hey, fellow Christians in yonder city! I've met your bishop and a bunch of your presbyters and deacons and they are Most Righteous Dudes! They believe in the Gospel of Jesus, so a really good thing to do is to be united with them and listen to their teaching. Don't chuck away God's blessing by trying to start your own thing on the side - that's like giving a free kick to the False Teachers who have been causing so much trouble lately."

The real kicker for me was a comment Ignatius made regarding unity and prayer:

Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. (Ep. Eph. V.)

Now, Ignatius is not saying that the bishop is a Prayer Signal Booster who gives group prayers more power to be received by God or get to the front of the cue. His contention is that if the whole of the church is united with godly leaders in petition to God then there is a certain "spiritual weight" that exceeds that of those who willfully abstain from proper communion (even if they have not yet succumbed to heresy). Prayer has power when God's people speak with one voice.

This had me thinking about the resources that are available for our communal prayers that often get under-utilized. Prayer diaries are available not only diocesan leaders but also our key mission organizations at home and abroad. Often these resources are treated as "a good source of ideas" for those composing our weekly prayers but with no compulsion to use. Yet would it not be a significant step if our weekly communal prayers were more coordinated, whether at a regional or diocesan level? Obviously, our ecclesiastical structures are much more complex than they were in the 1st Century and we must beware of applying Ignatius' advice inappropriately. But I believe that it would give our congregations encouragement (not even mentioning the added power to prayer) if they knew that there were things every week that there were things that all the other congregations in their mission area/region/diocese were also praying for, particularly if those responsible for leading these structures had made unity of prayer a priority. At significant moments or times of crisis when our leaders have called for unity of prayer I have found our congregations more than happy to respond. How good it would be if this pattern were the norm rather than the exception.

Evangelical Software, Anglican Hardware

Despite an already full calendar of local conferences/workshops/events, A Fresh Look At Mission took place in the centre of Sydney last Friday. Despite my aversion to large gatherings of Christians in a single locale I was sorry that I was unable to attend (factors of distance and having spent a lot of time recently out of the office swayed my decision). From what I have heard it was a very productive time for all concerned and I hope there will be further events as the topics covered seemed well worthy of attention.

What struck me as I read a report of the day was the content of the talk given by my beloved former teacher Dr Michael Jensen, who noted the reluctance of many young evangelical students to embrace Anglicanism as a way of expressing their theological convictions [note: as I was not at the talk I am relying on the accuracy of the above link and I hope not to misrepresent Dr Jensen in any way]. Jensen's argument appeared to run that all evangelical convictions must ultimately be expressed in some kind of ecclesiology. He likened the relationship to one of computer software and hardware (a subject I know next to nothing about). If evangelicalism is the "software", then Anglicanism is not only an appropriate but the best "hardware" on which to run the program. Jensen suggested that Anglican ministers should be more proactive at selling the "hardware" to young entrepreneurial evangelists and church-planters eager to win people for Christ.

I agree. I am an Anglican not by accident but by conviction. I walked into an Anglican church at the age of 17 mostly based on the fact that people I knew would be there. At various points I chose to stay because I believe the Anglican Church provides an appropriate framework in which to witness to the historic Christian faith. I could have changed denominations at several points but preferred not to.

However, I have an important question (that perhaps someone who attended the conference can answer): what exactly is the "Anglican hardware" that we should be promoting?

Sydney Anglicanism has always been a bit of a strange beast. A bit like old Uncle Neville at the family Christmas lunch, who is intent on keeping the seasonal traditions alive while wearing his trousers back-to-front. Good motives always, but sometimes lacking in the execution. Even our evangelical friends find us a bit tiresome occasionally. But about 30 years ago things really started going off the rails and many of our Anglican distinctives were chucked in favour of being more "culturally relevant". If Dr Jensen thinks we should dig some of these out of the cupboard, then let's go! But which ones, exactly? And to what extent?

Many will point to the 39 Articles or the teachings about the nature of church set out in the Ordinal. But these cannot be properly regarded as "hardware" - they are more like the Operating Instructions (ignore at Your Own Risk). Other Anglican distinctives exist, but at the present time they are subject to either indifference or outright hostility by both clergy and laity. Here are some of the typical Sydney attitudes towards Anglican "hardware" that I have observed:

Prayerbooks - Stable door open, horse bolted. Last attempt failed. Try again if you really must.

Buildings - A pain in the neck. Spend as little as possible. Or meet in school halls. Sacred space is a myth. [Note: This does not apply if you happen to be a "strategic" church which mysteriously burns down. In that case, spend whatever you want!]

Sacraments - Feel free to depart from mainstream Evangelical view on administration if your conscience allows. "Baptism-lite" option now available.

Robes - To be worn at ordination and at the funerals of Archbishops.

Bishops - They take up resources that could be used for practical ministry. If you want one, make sure they can pay their own way.

Worldwide Communion - Never gonna happen...

So, what's left in the "hardware" box? Have I missed something? Is any of the above reclaimable? What did we chuck that we should not have?

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.