Due to a death in the Dean's family, the workshop has been postponed 2 weeks and will take place December 18th 9 am to 4 pm.
Remember to sign up for this Advent Workshop being held in the Cathedral Hall on Saturday, December 18th from 9 am to 4 pm. Join us for a day of reflection, discussion and art making as we prepare for the season of annunciations and the heavenly chorus singing "Glory". Come hear bible stories about Angels, hagiography from our Christian history, and identify your guardian angel. We will spend the afternoon creating Angels from a variety of media. The workshop promises to provide a wonderful day of reflection, prayer and creativitiy in preparation for the Birth of the Christ Child. To register: sign up in the Church on the bulletin board, or call the office 250-372-3912. Open to ALL interested adults. Free lunch is provided.
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
SCHEDULE CHANGE
"Jesus goes to the Movies" schedule has been changed.
Jesus goes to the Movies: please note that the movie "Godspell" will be shown Sunday, November 28th at 7:00 PM in the Chapel, in place of "The Last Temptation of Christ" which will rescheduled in January, 2011. Watch for date and time.
Jesus goes to the Movies: please note that the movie "Godspell" will be shown Sunday, November 28th at 7:00 PM in the Chapel, in place of "The Last Temptation of Christ" which will rescheduled in January, 2011. Watch for date and time.
Friday, 12 November 2010
POST SURVEY DISCUSSIONS
Results of the Post-Survey discussions on Sunday, Oct 31 at St. Paul’s Cathedral.
People were asked to respond to the following 3 questions.
1 What are your initial thoughts and feelings on the results of the survey?
2. What does it say to you?
3. How do you see us going forward from here?
This is what groups came up with.
TABLE 1
Continue to investigate renovating our existing building.
Where is the money going to come from?
Roof repair/ replacement will be needed in the next 5 years.
Keep the best of what we have got. What spaces can be changed?
Install a Stair Chair instead of an elevator.
Washrooms.
People who no longer drive cannot get here by public transportation on Sundays. Do we need to change the times of our services?
If the property next door can be purchased, it could be made into a 5 – 6 storey condo building with Cathedral and Synod offices in the lower level and housing above.
Start on a smaller scale to see where the community can go in time.
A lot of concern was expressed about where money would come from to do either renovations or rebuilding.
TABLE 2
There is no clear direction because there has not been enough input from the parish.
There should have been more small group meetings like this to provide input for the committee.
It was nice to get information before the meeting so that people could preview it.
The survey does show that more people would like to see renovation rather than rebuild.
We need to choose the direction for our worship in the future.
We have an aging population and a small group of people who support the parish.
Ministry should dictate what kind of a facility we need.
With a renovation there is still a problem with parking.
With a renovation there is a huge expense to keep an old building going.
Renovations could be prioritized if there is a problem with expenses.
SUMMARY
We need to look at Ministry, worship space, vision and demographics, and have a building that reflects these.
Examine the good points of our Ministry and how we can build on them.
Provide a chart showing the demographics of the congregation.
Renovations should proceed to bring the building up to code and make it safer.
Have more small meetings or home visits to get the feeling of the congregation.
Have short meetings after the 8 AM service so that those members of the congregation can take part.
Identify areas where parishioners can see opportunities to accommodate changes. Encourage those programs that are working and identify areas where there could be improvement.
Check out Vernon, which has the fastest growing congregation in BC.
TABLE 3
We should do more repair and renovation. Put heat pump, air conditioner and air exchange upstairs, and eliminate baseboard heaters. This would be for the long term.
We need washrooms, a fire exit and a kitchen upstairs.
People may have disliked only one feature of the options. That could have influenced the vote.
Cover the basic needs of the building, and do the things that have to be done, such as the roof and air conditioning.
Incorporate the Chapel area into the main worship area.
Change is inevitable. We have to renovate.
Don’t feel that 59% of strongly agree and agree is adequate for the whole congregation to move forward as yet.
We need a confidential survey to see what our financial situation could be,
Temporarily change the Cathedral around and see if it works.
Determine the willingness of the parish to make a definitive commitment to the future.
We see energy in the strongly agree and agree columns for the renovate option.
We should explore a worship setting that is circular, rather than rectangular, one that accompanies the BAS with its sense of community
TABLE 4
Disappointing that there was no clear option.
Flags were raised about renovations.
Concerns about viability – things were not clarified enough.
Where is the business plan?
To work in detail concepts need more direction or time.
More details around finance are needed.
How would we finance?
There is a need for understanding of Ministry V Facility. Which do we need first?
With the purchase of the house next door, things might go in a new direction.
Knowing about the building next door might change the options of which result to investigate or choose.
Tell the congregation what can be saved if the status quo option is eliminated.
3 years of status quo.
Where will we be 25 years from now?
Look actively at where we belong for the future. Address it now, not in 25 years.
Set out a time frame.
Where are we in 25 years with each of the options? We need to have that discussion.
There is clear direction as the survey stands now - renovate.
We may need to drop the status quo and have only 2 options and decide from there.
Eliminate one of the options including property next door.
What is Ministry for us and for others, and how does it apply to these time lines.
Demographics and ministry and facility to follow.
Bring Ministry results into 2 options and how that fits into the future and viable values.
City planner and city vision have to align with our options and what that looks like.
Longer vision.
Info session on each option, with hard facts to provide context on narrower focus
Be there to meet needs that are going to be there.
Be strategic.
Get other churches involved and include them in discussion.
TABLE 5
THOUGHTS, FEELINGS and IMPRESSIONS
Frustration was expressed at not having a clear mandate to move forward.
This is a very Anglican result, with a range of views and hard to reach consensus (perhaps too much fence-sitting).
There are very different visions and desires of what people would like to see happen.
It would have been best to toss out the Status Quo and choose between the 2 real alternatives.
F and M Committee have been very balanced and fair in moving things forward – an excellent team and good work.
The Cleopas project looked at new church and social housing and after a long process and much discussion, could not make it work. Can we learn anything from this?
In Kelowna, 12 years of ad hoc bits and pieces in a facilities project without a compelling vision has led to unsatisfactory results.
Does the current committee feel a need for new blood and renewed energy after working hard on this for 3 + years?
What is the future demographic of our congregation, other churches and the Anglican Church of Canada? How will this influence our choices, commitments and legacies for next generations?
The survey has certainly challenged us to think seriously about our purpose / mission, our ministry and what we need in the way of facilities and location to fulfill that.
MOVING FORWARD
We should consider having a professional church / facilities / ministry facilitator assist us in working through our perceived impasse to develop a clearer direction.
If we have the house next door, it will allow us to keep options open and hopefully invigor some new energy and hope of the possibilities for the future.
The “same old: won’t cut it for the future. We need to come to a common, compelling (God’s vision!) that is future and community focused.
We do need the clear vision, but before people will buy in, we need to work through some details on scope and costs as well as seriously examine the opportunities and risks (SWOT analysis?).
It sounds as if there are only 2 options, either a new building or varying degrees of renovation of the existing one.
We should approach people in the congregation with talents and gifts that the Committee could use in the next phase.
Use professional help such as a church developer, strategic planning, and finance and risk management.
We should get an update from Kamloops United Church on how it achieved consensus and the essence of its business plan.
We need to move forward with a clear, strong vision for the future, but with the proviso that we must not sacrifice our mission in the process.
Straw poll for this table: renovate, 3 new building 4. Some who support renovate could shift to new building if certain risks and uncertainties could be addressed.
TABLE 6
Question 1
People felt badly that there seemed to be an impasse and nothing was definite.
If the figures were changed to percentages, and the groups of strongly agree and agree were combined, the percentages work out to 59% and 39%.
We should investigate only renovate or new building. Status quo is not an option.
Question 2
There IS a majority for renovate over new building.
Question 3
If we buy the house next door, what will we use it for - parking, expansion or something else? Money would come from various sources including an approximately $100,000 loan, as per the November 2009 meeting that approved purchasing the house.
Where will future money come from, as the congregation is aging? The last renovation was in 1988, and included the upstairs hall, handicapped bathroom, upper kitchen and the basement.
Can we do a blend of renovation and new building? We could keep the Cathedral and Chapel and rebuild where the parish hall exists. We should maintain the nostalgic value. Is it worthwhile to renovate when we might need to do a new building in a few years?
There are questions about asbestos, wiring and plumbing that need to be addressed.
All deliberations need to be transparent, and new options brought forward. The plans may have been too elaborate and frightening.
As a first step, consider turning the Cathedral around to face east, build the second floor further into the hall, and install a people transporter and bathroom on the second floor.
OVERALL SUMMARY of TABLE 6
The group is generally in favor of a combination of renovation and rebuilding, although concern was expressed about the worth of renovating an old building.
We should look at several renovation options, which could be done in stages.
What can we do to get more young people involved? We could have more lively music – guitars, keyboard, drums, etc.
A new building might cause us to lose people, especially if we were in temporary facilities for a while.
TABLE 7
Question 1
There was disappointment felt.
People were glad to listen to all points of view.
Results were not surprising, as there are more questions that need to be asked.
How would we fund?
Views are traditionalist.
Pleased with the input from youth.
Question 2
Split.
Money factor.
Encouraged that the status quo is not an option.
Question 3
It is doable.
The longer we wait, the more costly things will be.
Numbers of older people are decreasing, and are not able to contribute financially at the same levels as they once did.
Consider a hybrid option. A consensus might be reached.
Do all things in stages.
Have an overall plan and vision.
Debt could override ministry.
A new building has the potential to help with costs and enhance our outreach ministries.
Renovations do not necessarily improve functionality.
The sooner we do something, the better.
Meet people where they are.
Increase our use of social networking, especially to appeal to younger people.
It is going to take a long to reach completion.
We should find out more about what KUC is doing.
Concerns were expressed about the ups and downs in the housing market,
Give more information on costs associated with each option.
Note: People liked this type of table discussion, and there were positive comments about the work done by the Committee and about the amount of information it had shared with the congregation.
People were asked to respond to the following 3 questions.
1 What are your initial thoughts and feelings on the results of the survey?
2. What does it say to you?
3. How do you see us going forward from here?
This is what groups came up with.
TABLE 1
Continue to investigate renovating our existing building.
Where is the money going to come from?
Roof repair/ replacement will be needed in the next 5 years.
Keep the best of what we have got. What spaces can be changed?
Install a Stair Chair instead of an elevator.
Washrooms.
People who no longer drive cannot get here by public transportation on Sundays. Do we need to change the times of our services?
If the property next door can be purchased, it could be made into a 5 – 6 storey condo building with Cathedral and Synod offices in the lower level and housing above.
Start on a smaller scale to see where the community can go in time.
A lot of concern was expressed about where money would come from to do either renovations or rebuilding.
TABLE 2
There is no clear direction because there has not been enough input from the parish.
There should have been more small group meetings like this to provide input for the committee.
It was nice to get information before the meeting so that people could preview it.
The survey does show that more people would like to see renovation rather than rebuild.
We need to choose the direction for our worship in the future.
We have an aging population and a small group of people who support the parish.
Ministry should dictate what kind of a facility we need.
With a renovation there is still a problem with parking.
With a renovation there is a huge expense to keep an old building going.
Renovations could be prioritized if there is a problem with expenses.
SUMMARY
We need to look at Ministry, worship space, vision and demographics, and have a building that reflects these.
Examine the good points of our Ministry and how we can build on them.
Provide a chart showing the demographics of the congregation.
Renovations should proceed to bring the building up to code and make it safer.
Have more small meetings or home visits to get the feeling of the congregation.
Have short meetings after the 8 AM service so that those members of the congregation can take part.
Identify areas where parishioners can see opportunities to accommodate changes. Encourage those programs that are working and identify areas where there could be improvement.
Check out Vernon, which has the fastest growing congregation in BC.
TABLE 3
We should do more repair and renovation. Put heat pump, air conditioner and air exchange upstairs, and eliminate baseboard heaters. This would be for the long term.
We need washrooms, a fire exit and a kitchen upstairs.
People may have disliked only one feature of the options. That could have influenced the vote.
Cover the basic needs of the building, and do the things that have to be done, such as the roof and air conditioning.
Incorporate the Chapel area into the main worship area.
Change is inevitable. We have to renovate.
Don’t feel that 59% of strongly agree and agree is adequate for the whole congregation to move forward as yet.
We need a confidential survey to see what our financial situation could be,
Temporarily change the Cathedral around and see if it works.
Determine the willingness of the parish to make a definitive commitment to the future.
We see energy in the strongly agree and agree columns for the renovate option.
We should explore a worship setting that is circular, rather than rectangular, one that accompanies the BAS with its sense of community
TABLE 4
Disappointing that there was no clear option.
Flags were raised about renovations.
Concerns about viability – things were not clarified enough.
Where is the business plan?
To work in detail concepts need more direction or time.
More details around finance are needed.
How would we finance?
There is a need for understanding of Ministry V Facility. Which do we need first?
With the purchase of the house next door, things might go in a new direction.
Knowing about the building next door might change the options of which result to investigate or choose.
Tell the congregation what can be saved if the status quo option is eliminated.
3 years of status quo.
Where will we be 25 years from now?
Look actively at where we belong for the future. Address it now, not in 25 years.
Set out a time frame.
Where are we in 25 years with each of the options? We need to have that discussion.
There is clear direction as the survey stands now - renovate.
We may need to drop the status quo and have only 2 options and decide from there.
Eliminate one of the options including property next door.
What is Ministry for us and for others, and how does it apply to these time lines.
Demographics and ministry and facility to follow.
Bring Ministry results into 2 options and how that fits into the future and viable values.
City planner and city vision have to align with our options and what that looks like.
Longer vision.
Info session on each option, with hard facts to provide context on narrower focus
Be there to meet needs that are going to be there.
Be strategic.
Get other churches involved and include them in discussion.
TABLE 5
THOUGHTS, FEELINGS and IMPRESSIONS
Frustration was expressed at not having a clear mandate to move forward.
This is a very Anglican result, with a range of views and hard to reach consensus (perhaps too much fence-sitting).
There are very different visions and desires of what people would like to see happen.
It would have been best to toss out the Status Quo and choose between the 2 real alternatives.
F and M Committee have been very balanced and fair in moving things forward – an excellent team and good work.
The Cleopas project looked at new church and social housing and after a long process and much discussion, could not make it work. Can we learn anything from this?
In Kelowna, 12 years of ad hoc bits and pieces in a facilities project without a compelling vision has led to unsatisfactory results.
Does the current committee feel a need for new blood and renewed energy after working hard on this for 3 + years?
What is the future demographic of our congregation, other churches and the Anglican Church of Canada? How will this influence our choices, commitments and legacies for next generations?
The survey has certainly challenged us to think seriously about our purpose / mission, our ministry and what we need in the way of facilities and location to fulfill that.
MOVING FORWARD
We should consider having a professional church / facilities / ministry facilitator assist us in working through our perceived impasse to develop a clearer direction.
If we have the house next door, it will allow us to keep options open and hopefully invigor some new energy and hope of the possibilities for the future.
The “same old: won’t cut it for the future. We need to come to a common, compelling (God’s vision!) that is future and community focused.
We do need the clear vision, but before people will buy in, we need to work through some details on scope and costs as well as seriously examine the opportunities and risks (SWOT analysis?).
It sounds as if there are only 2 options, either a new building or varying degrees of renovation of the existing one.
We should approach people in the congregation with talents and gifts that the Committee could use in the next phase.
Use professional help such as a church developer, strategic planning, and finance and risk management.
We should get an update from Kamloops United Church on how it achieved consensus and the essence of its business plan.
We need to move forward with a clear, strong vision for the future, but with the proviso that we must not sacrifice our mission in the process.
Straw poll for this table: renovate, 3 new building 4. Some who support renovate could shift to new building if certain risks and uncertainties could be addressed.
TABLE 6
Question 1
People felt badly that there seemed to be an impasse and nothing was definite.
If the figures were changed to percentages, and the groups of strongly agree and agree were combined, the percentages work out to 59% and 39%.
We should investigate only renovate or new building. Status quo is not an option.
Question 2
There IS a majority for renovate over new building.
Question 3
If we buy the house next door, what will we use it for - parking, expansion or something else? Money would come from various sources including an approximately $100,000 loan, as per the November 2009 meeting that approved purchasing the house.
Where will future money come from, as the congregation is aging? The last renovation was in 1988, and included the upstairs hall, handicapped bathroom, upper kitchen and the basement.
Can we do a blend of renovation and new building? We could keep the Cathedral and Chapel and rebuild where the parish hall exists. We should maintain the nostalgic value. Is it worthwhile to renovate when we might need to do a new building in a few years?
There are questions about asbestos, wiring and plumbing that need to be addressed.
All deliberations need to be transparent, and new options brought forward. The plans may have been too elaborate and frightening.
As a first step, consider turning the Cathedral around to face east, build the second floor further into the hall, and install a people transporter and bathroom on the second floor.
OVERALL SUMMARY of TABLE 6
The group is generally in favor of a combination of renovation and rebuilding, although concern was expressed about the worth of renovating an old building.
We should look at several renovation options, which could be done in stages.
What can we do to get more young people involved? We could have more lively music – guitars, keyboard, drums, etc.
A new building might cause us to lose people, especially if we were in temporary facilities for a while.
TABLE 7
Question 1
There was disappointment felt.
People were glad to listen to all points of view.
Results were not surprising, as there are more questions that need to be asked.
How would we fund?
Views are traditionalist.
Pleased with the input from youth.
Question 2
Split.
Money factor.
Encouraged that the status quo is not an option.
Question 3
It is doable.
The longer we wait, the more costly things will be.
Numbers of older people are decreasing, and are not able to contribute financially at the same levels as they once did.
Consider a hybrid option. A consensus might be reached.
Do all things in stages.
Have an overall plan and vision.
Debt could override ministry.
A new building has the potential to help with costs and enhance our outreach ministries.
Renovations do not necessarily improve functionality.
The sooner we do something, the better.
Meet people where they are.
Increase our use of social networking, especially to appeal to younger people.
It is going to take a long to reach completion.
We should find out more about what KUC is doing.
Concerns were expressed about the ups and downs in the housing market,
Give more information on costs associated with each option.
Note: People liked this type of table discussion, and there were positive comments about the work done by the Committee and about the amount of information it had shared with the congregation.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
MOVIES
Jesus goes to the Movies
movies based on the life of Jesus
please join us to watch & discuss the movies
Sunday evenings at 7:00 PM in the Chapel
November 7 Jesus of Montreal
November 14 Yeshua: Exploring the Jewish Roots of Jesus
November 21 Jesus Christ Superstar
November 28 The Last Temptation of Christ
December 5 Godspell
St. Paul’s Cathedral: phone: 250-372-3912 email: stpaulscathedral@shawbiz.ca
Verna Albright: 250-579-5208 Chuck Kalnin: 250-376-1940
movies based on the life of Jesus
please join us to watch & discuss the movies
Sunday evenings at 7:00 PM in the Chapel
November 7 Jesus of Montreal
November 14 Yeshua: Exploring the Jewish Roots of Jesus
November 21 Jesus Christ Superstar
November 28 The Last Temptation of Christ
December 5 Godspell
St. Paul’s Cathedral: phone: 250-372-3912 email: stpaulscathedral@shawbiz.ca
Verna Albright: 250-579-5208 Chuck Kalnin: 250-376-1940
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)