Quote from: Martin on November 20, 2011, 00:53:04

I agree with much of the sentiment in that too. Though I think he slightly misses the point in that we need to do more than just be welcoming and hospitable to protesters.  I think we need to declare our solidarity with their aims.

This simply said that we need to be welcoming and hospitable tom protesters and to declare solidarity with their aims.

Ah.  I see how the misunderstanding arose -  and it's my mistake, sorry.  I should have written 'the protestors' not simply 'protestors'.

Yes of course I'm not saying that any protest, no matter what its aims, should be met with solidarity from the church.

Not sure that it's just the C of E can can get the flack.  I bet most people have churches that are fundraising for a new roof, new kitchen, new sound system, rather than housing the homeless, and feeding the hungry in a real way

I agree up to a point.
When a church spends money on a new roof, new kitchen or new sound system it can be spending money in a way that is self-indulgent, when there are more desrving causes.  However there are usually reasons why a church might do this.  If the roof is leaking, the options are usually to fix it or to allow the building to suffer more damage because of it.  If the building is used for nothing more than housing a group of people in a sort of holy huddle club, who care little for the community they are in, or for the wider world, then I think you have a point.  If the building is used as a comunity centre, somewhere that Alcoholics Anonymous meets, a place where people come for marriage guidance, a day care centre for the elderly, a place where parents and toddlers have a chance to get together without having to shell out a fortune, etc, then I think money spent on the fabric of the building is not spent self-indulgently.  Similarly, a kitchen refit may be to bring a kitchen up to the standard it needs to be, to run a drop-in centre for homeless people. A new sound system may be needed because a church involved in these sorts of activities, derives its drive and passion from church services where the sound system is important for people to hear and respond in solidarity with one another.

So spending money is not so much the issue, it's the good that is the result that's important.

In the case we're talking about,  the church found itself in a position where protests had arrived at its door, literally.  It found itself, because of its location next to the LSE, having to make a decision whether to welcome and support or to turn away those fighting a cause on behalf of the poor.  More importantly, whatever decisions it made were going to be very visible.  Here was an opportunity for really stating Christ's solidarity with the poor, unambiguously.  And it blew it.  It acheived the opposite, aligning its image with the power structure that keeps the poor oppressed.  Oh yes they produce a paper or two that's critical of the system, but when real action arrives on their doorstep, they side with those who want to supress it.