My 50th post

I believe this will be the 50th post on this blog. So, congratulations me! (ha ha)

To celebrate, here's some thought on a meeting I attended last night. My church's APCM (Annual parocial church meeting, or "Amazing party for church members" as a curate tried to rename it!)

Since this was my fourth AGM or EGM of this year (ie, since January) I'm beginning to feel quite a connisseur of these type of meetings. This one was particularly interesting because it was the first of this type that I had attended.

I found out some interesting things in the course of the meeting. Of the 700+ people who attend the church, there are 462 on the electoral roll (ie, people who are eligible to vote at the APCM). I suppose that's not too bad a proportion when you consider the nature of our church. What did amuse me is that apparently of those 462, only three live within the parish. I suppose with a city centre parish with few residential properties that's inevitable, but it does make me think. What difference would it make if all those people went to their local parish churches? What difference to the parish churches? What difference to local communities? Of course, I understand why people don't. I'm one of them.

Of those 462, around 80-90 appeared to be present at the meeting. Some of the same questions arise as they do in national politics, when a decision is taken at a meeting by a majority of 50-odd which will affect how the church is run.

The main decision to be made was to reduce the size of the church council to a more workable number. I can easily imagine how difficult it is to make decisions with a group of nearly 4o- I've been on committees of 12 that have struggled to do that! I also understand some of the objections being raised that ordinary members might struggle to make their voices heard under the new scheme. Although whether it's any different now is another matter.

However, the problem seemed to be epitomised for me by one section of the evening. 7 people needed to be elected to the council for the next year, until the new arrangement comes into place, to replace members who were retiring. Only one person stood for election. If so few people, even within those who are interested in the way the church is run (and people who weren't didn't need to come to the meeting) are willing to stand for election and do something about it, surely there's a problem. How can people complain about getting their voice heard if they're not willing to do something themselves?

I think one of the problems is that people like me, who haven't been in the church for thirty years (and didn't even grow up in the Anglican tradition) don't necessarily understand what the role of the PCC is, or what it does, or what being on it means committing oneself to. Also, the younger people may often think that it's a job for older people, although I think a balance of some younger people, of the type who haven't been here for a couple of decades, would be good. Sometimes it seems to me that there are a group of people who do these jobs, and other people don't even think about doing them, because there's a perception (created I don't know how) that you have to be asked to join that group.

People may also see other areas as more exciting and more important to be involved in. Administrate or financial procedures and oversight may not sound the most exciting, but being right at the centre of church decision making should be exciting and interesting. These are our leaders, there to support the clergy and help them understand God's will for the church. We should value and pray for them. Or so I see it.