The seminar leadership had more males than females, but not too horrible a ratio. Overall, while there’s certainly plenty of room for improvement, I felt like there was probably an intentionality there that I appreciate.

But… of course… maybe that’s because I agree with you. I would be put off by power point backgrounds and altar calls as well.

So I’m hesitant to criticize CWW for not having a clear focus/function statement, but I didn’t detect one. The theme was “What we can’t leave behind” but it was addressed seldom and the seminars didn’t seem connected to it.

So yeah, the “current church” sort of did what the current church does, but I’m not sure much directed conversation resulted. It was really more like a revival than anything. Which is cool, but not what I expected. There wasn’t much actual talk on crossing divides, or crossing borders, or thinking creatively about the future.

First, I’m required to make this report, and so I didn’t have much choice. Perhaps my tone is a bit harsh or direct at points, but I’m simply trying to convey my experience. My report contains many “nice” remarks, but it also mentions some not so nice thoughts the gathering brought about, so I felt it only right to share those as well.

Second, far too often the church becomes a place where nobody says what they truly feel but just goes along with what’s always been done, or what a loud minority is saying. I think it’s important to share our perspectives, even when we anticipate others not to agree with us.

I don’t mean to break down or tear apart; anything but. I’m sharing my honest perspective, and hoping a dialog may grow out of it.

Kindly note, I didn’t call John Sentamu arrogant. I wrote, “Sentamu spoke well on the meaning of the ascension and the distinction between evangelism and mission. But by the time he left the stage following an impromptu altar call, rude commanding of the music leaders, and self-promoting drumming, I questioned his approach.”

After complimenting his sermon, I think it’s fair to question his approach to the altar call. From my perspective, he seemed to be bossing the music leadership, and it struck me the wrong way.

Jake, you’re right, I didn’t mention the folks who went up front, and perhaps I should. I couldn’t see them well from my vantage point but many did seem touched by the Spirit, and I thank God for that. However, the couple beside me left during the altar call, which I didn’t note either. I was more addressing the manner in which the invitation was made rather than the altar call itself.

Perhaps Hazel and John’s comments speak to the diversity of perspective of those who attended the event, and indeed, of those in the Church of Scotland. I think John’s final sentence sums it up well. There were plenty positive things happening for many people at the event, and I’m grateful for that. But there were fewer patently positive things happening for me at the event, and that’s what I felt called to report as it was my experience.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the broadening of the conversation.

The assessment of Sentamu’s contribution I find particularly questionable given that it makes no mention of the hundreds that came forward as a result of the altar call.

If the Spirit was at work using Sentamu’s words and speaking into people’s hearts, then sterms such as “rude”, “self-promoting” and “arrogant” seem quite out of place.

Perhaps you were having a bad day and had other things on your mind, perhaps you were homesick, maybe you just didn’t feel it, but clearly there was a whole lot going on for many others and its a shame that you felt outside of that.