Row over plan to push out old pews

This disappointing article failed adequately to address the reasons why a change in seating might be a good idea, prefering ill-informed comment. I'm a church member, currently living in Europe. I'm no longer a "youth" (except at heart) but support the change to flexible seating arrangements. One reason for this is practical - pews are uncomfortable, the more so for those of us over six foot tall. My kids don't like them either.

More to the point, a church is not an artefact. It is a place where all should feel welcome and able to worship. If should, preferably, have its doors open wide to the community. And it should be able to adapt to the changing needs of a community. Perhaps the article could have looked constructively at what is planned to replace the pews? Or actually asked what was planned in services where pews might be a hindrance?

I know the clergy and leaders of KAC well. They are people of integrity who seek to work issues through in good faith, while actually leading the church. They have sought to make the church more relevant to all in the Karori community. Leadership of this sort sometimes means wearing flak for decisions made. I'm sure Moses copped a fair bit in his time in the wilderness too...but in his case perhaps his followers at least had grievances more serious than where they might perch while worshipping?

For what it's worth, I've visited many of the oldest churches in Europe in the past six months. Guess what? The vast majority don't have pews. They have flexible, individual seating. So how about moving on, and perhaps the Dom Post could do some reporting on the constructive aspects of KAC's community work?

The interior of St Mary's is not being changed to suit a younger generation. The changes to the interior represent a desire, and a need, for the church to grow, develop and progress along with the rest of society. The Church was never meant to stagnate. I am greatly saddened about the situation at Karori Anglican Churches. Church is not even about the building. Church is about community and serving and worshipping our God. The building is a tool to be used to God's glory, it is not the object to be worshipped and held on to. I am also angered that the Vicar of Karori Anglican Churches has had to put up with the conniving and immature behavior, not to mention hurtful words, from a small, but loud, minority of people. Should I also mention that those are the people who lost a fair vote? Obviously the decision to have the interior of the church changed is a majority decision. I can take solace in the wise words of my mother "The church is not a home for Saints, it is a school for Sinners".

I can't believe the pews are being removed from St.Mary's church in Karori to suit the young generation. We don't have rock concerts replacing Anzac Day services to attract the young and yet the number of youth attending is growing every year. I suggest the Vicar takes a long hard look at himself and his sermons.

Prof. Walden should stick to architecture, and not sociology. Unless of course, he's trying to say that the design/layout of a building doesn't affect what goes on inside ("It won't change anything at all"), a view I'm sure a great many of his colleagues would take issue with.

Im a youth member of the Karori Anglican Church and the votes were taken from current members of the church, young and old. The voting was strictly overseen so that it was fair and a clear representation of those who use the church. The majority voted for this change.

This is a great change for the church, church is not about tradition, religion and archaic buildings. It's about a relationship with God and these renovations allows for this and caters for more people, what could be better!

If you are worried about 'historic and valuable', go to a museum. We have worshiping to do. The people who are angry and afraid of this change will be the same people saying 'wow, this looks great' after it's complete.

I am upset to see how misinformed this article is. Firstly, the majority of church members have enough vision to see that the church will die and be left behind in the dark ages if the changes do not happen. The results of the voting clearly show that people want the changes to occur. Secondly, the voting was well advertised in the parish newsletter, in all church services, on the website, via text and of course by word of mouth. Thirdly, only those who are on the parish roll could vote. That means that only people who are active in the life of the church had a say. (The requirements were that you had to attend church for at least 4 months in the last 2 years, as per Anglican Diocese). This also meant that people who only came out of the woodwork to have their say in important decisions and were not actively involved in the life of the church were unable to vote. Fair enough? I think so. Is there anything wrong with moving forward? Is there anything wrong with changing with the times? The church does not and should not be a traditional institution that remains in the dark ages. If that happens it will end up dying out. The youth will go somewhere that has more vision and is more outward looking.