Comment on remarks by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali

Max is spot on. The Church's problem is that it does not focus on doing its own job in a culturally relevant way. Let us convey the Gospel to all people in a way that they can understand and in an environment in which they feel comfortable. How come the Abundant Life Church in Bradford is attracting such large numbers?

I think probably what the Bishop says is true. No go areas are not new to Britain. It would be interesting to see what comments William Hague or other politicians would make if they lived in the area the Bishop referred to. I do not think the Bishop's comments are divisive but more of a wake up call to reality. I do not believe people pre-meditate closing boundary lines but it is often what happens when people don't feel safe.

Our reaction to the Bishop's statement should surely not be one of alarm with the result that we bury our heads in the sand but one of recognition that there is truth in this, with the focus more importantly being upon co-existence. This can only happen through engagement between communities which apparantly is what the Bishop suggests isn't happening now. A new job for him?!

As someone who has lived and worked in the interfaith area of Luton for the last 11 years, I find much sympathy with the Bishops viewpoint in my congregations.

Those who do not live or work in these areas have no sympathy or indeed comprehension of the older white and Caribbean people who feel that their aarea has changed beyond their understanding. Many feel isolated from a way of life that has been replaced by an alien culture. This of course is also true of those who are from other cultures in Britain.

Community cohesion does not- in my mind- address these problems, instead multi-faith and multi-cultural ideaologies are pushed without reference to those who actually have to live amongst the changes.

Yes, it is natural for people to gather together with those who share their faith and culture, and it is right that they do so. But, and its a big but, churches and councils and governments seem to tinker around the edges of the problems and fail to support those of us who continue to feel its worthwhile to interact, and reach across the barriers.

The Bishop has bought into the open something that needed to be discussed - especially when in my area, Caribbean and white people are being intimidated and threatened because some from an Asian background feel these people (who have often lived there for over 50/60 years) shouldn't be in 'their' area!

More understanding and interactivity is obviously required between faiths and cultures. When is Methodism going to offer support for churches in such areas so that this work can be undertaken?

Amidst the Bishop of Rochester's remarks is a very significant one about British Christianity that has been lost in the furore over his comments on Islamic ghettos: "If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one."

He's right, of course. The 2001 national census showed only 7.9% non-whites in the British population but 17% of those who attend church are non-white, according to the 2005 English Church Census. Non-white church attendance has increased by 19% since 1998, while the white churchgoing community has dropped by 19%. In London 68% of church attenders are non-white.

Yet in the 2001 national census 40 million (7 out of 10) described themselves as white Christian and only 15% claimed to have no religion.

Can we really blame the Muslims or multi-faith provision for the fact that so many self-proclaimed "white Christians" find church services irrelevant to their lives or that the drop in the 20-29 age group attending church has been 29% over 7 years?

I think the good bishop is jealous that Islam provides a cohesive force and identity within the minority ethnic community, while the mainstream Christian churches have mainly lost touch with their communities - as far as worship goes, at least. Far too many are 50 years out of date in their theology, their language and imagery, their worship services, their social attitudes and in the way they seek to control their congregation's lives.

I attended a service at our large local parish church where it was standing room only for latecomers. The occasion was the funeral of a retired teacher who was a prison visitor. She had obviously made a major impact in the local prison because there was a heavy presence of warders and other staff and, I suspect, a good number of ex-cons. [At least the way they struggled with the prayer book liturgy suggests they weren't church regulars.] For much of the service these visitors looked lost with the archaic language and doleful 18th century hymns. It was only when the vicar left the liturgy and talked about the woman herself that the church came alive. If any of these visitors came to the service wondering what inspiration this wonderful woman gained from her church, they must have gone away baffled.

That's where you need to focus your attention, bishop!

A bishop complaining about public calls to prayer?! Whatever next?

It would be helpful if critics of the Bishops statement had some understanding of the Bishops background and experience. Namely that he came from a society which has not had a strong tradition of being pluralistic on faith issues and where Christians still encounter real discrimination and persecution. As far as I know there is not much Christian missionary work amongst Britains Muslim population to test his thesis. It has been well documented though that some Muslims who have converted have had their lives threatened and had to move away from where they are known.
Myself like most Christian or non-believers I would be quite happy to listen to Muslim missionaries put their case in a genuine discussion in my Church, my local street or at my home if thats what they wanted to do.