GAFCON - Richard Coekin's Reflections

Richard Coekin, the Senior Pastor of the Co-Mission Initiative of which Christ Church Balham is a part has written his personal reflections on our time in Jerusalem at the Global Anglican Future Conference. You'll find his observations here.

Dear Friends - July

Dear Friends

In recent weeks the media has been awash with stories of the further disintegration of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. As is often the case, the carefully worded statements of principled biblical leaders are presented as the bigoted ranting of schismatic homophobic militants at the lunatic fringe of mainstream Christianity. Not by everyone, admittedly. Rather wonderfully some of the press reporting, particularly by the BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Piggott, has been very fair. One of the newsworthy items has been the Global Anglican Future Conference [GAFCON] held in Jerusalem at the end of June.

I had the privilege of attending with the Co-Mission Senior Pastor, Richard Coekin. It was more enjoyable and encouraging than I ever imagined it would be. Though it was hard to be separated from church and especially from family, it was wonderful to be among old and new friends from all around the world. There were so many highlights that it seems miserly to limit them to a few. But chief amongst them must be the private tour of the biblical sites of Jerusalem by Australian historian and theologian Paul Barnett, conversations on the bus with Archbishop Josiah Fearon from Kaduna, Nigeria and relaxing by the hotel pool with the great and the good from the English evangelical church scene!

One of the key things to come out of GAFCON was the Statement on the Global Anglican Future. For those of us who are cynical about such things or overly pedantic about the precise details of statements of faith you need to remember that when the draft statement was read to a room of approximately 1,200 people, grown men whooped, wept, jumped for joy and hugged one another. The British did it on the inside. One senior clergyman said to me, ‘this is the best thing to come out of Anglicanism in all my years of ministry’. Another said, ‘for the first time in my ordained life I’m not embarrassed to be an Anglican!’
Let me suggest that this is a great statement for at least these three reasons.

1. It’s a reassertion of authentic Anglicanism
Opponents of GAFCON are already suggesting that the motivation behind the movement is schismatic separation. It is most definitely not that. These orthodox Anglicans are going nowhere. Though the statement launches a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the document states that ‘our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion’. Instead they are committed to the preservation, recovery and growth of authentic Anglicanism. This is defined not by recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury but by a doctrinal commitment to the authority of the scriptures as expressed in the Creeds and the 39 Articles. This ought to be music to evangelical ears. It means that the Church of England belongs to people like us and not the liberal revisionists who currently wield so much influence. In actuality they are like a parasitical cuckoo that has flown uninvited into the biblical nest of Anglicanism and is in the process of forcing out the rightful heirs to the denomination. It’s a deliberately provocative metaphor, but it’s accurate.

2. It’s a potentially divisive statement
Though lots of faithful Anglicans may agree that things are a mess at the moment, not everyone will like what’s been suggested. And therefore self proclaimed evangelical leaders like the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, who has written many useful things and with whom we would agree on a whole range of issues, have come out strongly against what’s been proposed. But over the last ten years there’s been a growing consensus that evangelicals cannot simply stay in the Church of England and accept further compromise. For the sake of Christ and his gospel we must contend, graciously but firmly. And in so doing we’re not doing anything un-Anglican. Anglicanism ought to welcome evangelical Christians. And yet in some dioceses the central structures are opposing gospel work and even persecuting gospel churches. Courageously, the leaders of GAFCON have decided that they cannot stand by whilst others preach another gospel, whilst principled Anglicans are forced to seek alternative Episcopal oversight and whilst no effective disciplinary measures are taken against the liberal revisionists. In my view, GAFCON is realistic about the mess that we’re currently in and it promises help in those situations.

3. It’s a distraction from the job of ministry
I’ve deliberately overstated that in order to make unmistakably clear that though this is a political statement of real substance it won’t bring anyone to faith and it won’t grow anyone in Christian maturity. That’s our job. It will be tempting for us to become distracted and forget that Christ commissioned us to make disciples of all nations not make us familiar with the endless round of opinions expressed in the ‘blogosphere’. Let’s be informed on the issues but not sidetracked by them. The Jerusalem statement is significant, please don’t misunderstand me. It’s especially encouraging and supportive of the gospel ministry that we’re trying to do in launching new congregations and raising up future church leaders. But it will not do it for us. We must encourage one another to keep going in the demanding but rewarding work of gospel ministry. Of course, we still think that the Church of England is worth fighting for. We’d like there to be Anglican churches up and down the country in years to come so that our children and grandchildren can hear the gospel in them. But the battle for the Church of England will not be won on pieces of paper, but on the ground. If Anglican Evangelical churches like ours keep growing and producing informed and godly mums, dads, workers, pastors and kids then we’ll have a massive influence on the direction of the Christian faith in this country. Ultimately that’s our aim. We seek not simply the preservation of an ancient denomination but the glory of Christ through the salvation of sinners. It’s just that we think the Church of England is still a great place to do that from.

Conclusion

If you’ve not already done so, why not read the Statement on the Anglican Mainstream web site. You’ll find it so encouraging. And if you sign the petition and express your support, you’ll encourage others.

With best wishes in Christ

richard

Dear Friends - June

Dear Friends
At the holiday Bible club, Going Bananas, we looked at the encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus. Jesus’ determination to pursue sinners provoked outrage amongst the religious elite. In their opinion if Jesus was a godly man, as he claimed to be, he shouldn’t be found amongst the ungodly. It seems logical. But that doesn’t make it right. Jesus explained that his behaviour was entirely consistent with the ministry that God had given him. To explain what he was about, he used the words, ‘the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost’. When we came to teach the kids we really struggled with explaining the concept of ‘lostness’. What does it mean for a person to be lost? How would you articulate it? We realised that when something is lost, it’s not where it’s supposed to be. The keys ought to be in the key plate and when they’re not, they’re lost. In the same way, people are lost when they’re not where they should be. They should be living lives in glad and obedient submission to their loving Creator. But they’re not. And so they’re lost. Jesus came to find these people and put them back where they belong. He’s done it for us. And now we’re keen that he should do it for others. This is one of the most important convictions that underpins church life at CCB. We’re not primarily about looking after those of us who’ve been found, we’re primarily about seeking the lost. In fact, we’re prepared to leave the found to seek the lost, just as Jesus was. Not every church accepts this. But wonderfully this is not a battle that we have to fight at CCB. The month of May was largely taken up with trying to share in Jesus’ mission. The three major events in the church calendar all had the intention of seeking the lost.

1. The Away Day

This was held at the Factory, the new church building in Raynes Park. It was planned and implemented to perfection by Anna. It was attended by a huge proportion of both congregations. Dan Strange, a lecturer at Oak Hill Theological College, helped us with a subject he described as, Cultural Apologetics. In essence it’s a way of describing Peter’s command to defend the reason for the hope that we have [1 Peter 3:15]. It means that in interacting with our society, we’re trying to do two things. In the first place we’re trying to remove distortions to the gospel and thereby clarify people’s understanding. And secondly, we’re trying to remove false assurance and thereby convict people of the truth. It has value for both unbelievers and believers alike because we both share idolatrous heart commitments. In other words we worship things that aren’t God. What we worship or love manifests itself as a worldview, a framework of assumptions through which we understand everything. A worldview always takes shape as we create a culture in which those things are given significance. Cultural Apologetics helps us to identify, understand and evaluate these idolatrous influences. It’ll help us deal with idolatry in the hearts of unbelievers and in our own hearts. If we want to seek the lost we need to be able to critique the culture and work out what it tells us about what’s replaced God in our affections.

2. The Park Party

In essence The Park Party was a glorified Church Fete, though I’d never want to hear it called that! It conjures up unhealthy stereotypes that we’re keen to leave behind! The intent behind our inaugural Park Party was to try and connect with the local community. Most people in Balham have no contact at all with CCB. In a small way, we wanted to address that. But though we sought to promote CCB, what we really wanted to promote was Jesus Christ and his gospel. We were able to do this especially through the children’s talk from Luke 14. Wonderfully a huge number of people stayed on and came to the church meeting. At that event, loads of people heard that God has invited everyone to his heavenly feast. Christian and his team of helpers did a wonderful job of planning and implementing the event. The teams from the various Knowing God groups made invaluable contributions on the day. The band provided a wonderfully varied musical programme. And we are deeply indebted to those who cooked cakes and biscuits. There will be lots that we can learn from our first attempt at this scale of event but above all, it was a tremendous success.

3. The Holiday Club

We took a bit of punt pitching Going Bananas at Primary School aged children. CCB only has two kids in that age range! But if we always let reason win over risk we’d never get anything started! Alright, we let their slightly younger siblings come along as well, so that boosted numbers. But even that concession meant that only 6 of the 20 children who came are part of Christ Church Kids. Wonderfully through our involvement at Telferscot, friendships with parents at Henry Cavendish and the regular Christ Church Kids’ Parties we were able to promote the holiday Bible club wider than we’d hoped. We even had one family who came as a result of The Park Party. Polly did a fantastic job in planning the three mornings and running the team of willing and talented volunteers. Many took time off work to be involved. It was a great team effort and a reminder that as a church we are one body with many parts [1 Corinthians 12:12]. As with many of the things we’ve done, if we start small, pray and back it the Lord will use our efforts for His glory. God willing, this will be the first of our Holiday Bible Clubs and an integral part of a growing children’s ministry. Conclusion It won’t always be easy ‘seeking the lost’. It cost Jesus his life. We’ll find it’ll cost us as well. But as we know personally, the experience of salvation is worth every sacrifice that we could possibly make.
With best wishes in Christ
perks

Park Party

Park Party
Location: Adjacent to the One O'Clock Club and all weather sports pitch on Tooting Triangle, Tooting Common
Date: Sunday 18th May
Time: 2-5pm
Bouncy Castle, Face Painting, Biscuit Decorating, Games, Family Church Meeting, Refreshments & Home Made Cakes
Evening church meeting @ 6.00 pm

Free Admission.
There will be a small charge for activities.

For more information contact Anna on 020 85434411 or anna@christchurchbalham.org.uk

Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill

Back in the mid 1980s, the Radio 1 DJ Steve Wright and his posse wrote a song about a character known as Llama Man. I can still remember the lyrics that used to belt out of the school bus radio. ‘He can bleat. He can trot. He’s got everything that a llama’s got!’ What was a joke back then could now become a reality. No seriously, I’m not winding you up. And more importantly, neither is the Government. As you'd expect I'm overstating it a little. But in a raft of horrific ethical decisions what used to be a laugh is about to become legislation. This time, we’ve really lost the plot.
In case you’d not realised, we’re talking about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It’s already been debated and voted in the House of Lords where sound common sense gave way to powerful political lobbying. Well financed scientific institutions and some medically qualified peers trounced the voices of reason seeking sensible amendments.
But before I really let loose in a fresh tirade I ought to substantiate the strength of my feeling. There are in essence three main objections to the proposals. But before I enumerate them, it’s worth saying that I understand and identify with the compassionate impulse that underpins the motives of some who support this Bill. The noble aim of much scientific research is to reverse the effects of human disease; especially debilitating illnesses with which some of our friends are afflicted. Anyone who’s seen someone struggle with Cystic Fibrosis, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s to name but three will sympathise with the impulse to do all that we can to rid this world of such horrors. But the end does not justify the means. And the means are ethically very dubious, especially when viewed through a Christian ethical framework.
Therefore fuelled by the helpful material produced by Christian Concern for our Nation, the Christian Institute and CARE these are my objections.
1. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the species
The existing legislation will make it permissible for scientists to create animal-human hybrid embryos for research purposes. In a classic piece of spin doctoring they’ve renamed these embryos, which are part human and part animal, ‘human admixed embryos’. Others who are closer to the mark have decided to call the process ‘in vitro bestiality’. There are three types of animal-human embryos that scientists seek.
First there are Cybrids in which the nucleus from an animal egg is removed and replaced with a human nucleus.
Secondly there are Chimeras which are created by bringing together a set of human cells and animal cells during the early stages of development.
Thirdly, there are Hybrids in which animal DNA and human DNA are mixed with the resultant embryo being a new part-human species.
Scientists want these hybrids because they produce a large number of embryonic stem cells and there are insufficient numbers of human eggs. And so, in each of these hybrid ‘creations’ the stem cells are harvested and used for research. The embryo is then destroyed. A fully fledged llama man may have been averted but we’ve just killed a person made in God’s image in the process. And that’s not funny in the least. In response to these proposals, it’s been argued that
a. The process is unnecessary. Adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells. Stem cells from sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have now been used to successfully treat a number of conditions.
b. The process is unsuccessful. Human embryonic stem cell research has failed to produce any treatment or cures in the last 17 years. Some scientists maintain that since these embryos will not develop in the same way as human embryos they are unlikely to yield knowledge of the process by which human stem cells develop.
c. The process is unethical. The issue with this proposal is that the legislation blurs the distinction between animal and human. If we erode the boundaries between the species we destroy the basis for the uniqueness of the human race. There is the world of difference between a rat and a human. It’s on this basis that we have things like human rights. But the foundation for human dignity is about to be obliterated.
2. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the significance of families
This Bill opens the door to three things that are potentially destructive to the family.
a. The creation of Saviour Siblings. When I was a child my father drove a Fiat. It was always breaking down, he was frugal and he was an engineer. And so very often we’d spend a Saturday morning at a ‘wrecker’s yard’ scouting for spare parts to keep the car on the road. Dad was brilliant at taking an old distributor, alternator or thermostat and transplanting it to give new life to our sick vehicle. It’s that image that we need to have in mind when we think about ‘saviour siblings’. Under new legislation scientists would be allowed to create sibling children for the purpose of using them for spare parts. As we might expect with such a controversial proposal there are consequences. This process involves pre-implantation testing of IVF embryos so that those that are a match for the sick sibling can be chosen and those that are not a match can be destroyed. A child that’s a tissue match can then be created for the purpose of seeing his or her body parts removed in order to patch up the sick sibling. In addition, no one has any idea what the anticipated psychological consequence will be for the child as it grows up and realises that it was created principally to resource his or her brother or sister.
b. The removal of Fathers. Whilst many wives lament that their husbands have become emotionally absent fathers and regrettably many women struggle under the burden of raising children as sole parents, this Government wants to enshrine in law the principal that fathers are no longer necessary in families. The Bill removes the need for IVF providers to take into account the child’s need for a father when considering an IVF application. The House of Lords amended the Bill so that it was deemed sufficient for the child to have ‘supportive parenting’. This obviously means that lesbian couples can have their ‘own’ child by IVF. This is undoubtedly going to have a detrimental effect on the development of a child. Apparently studies already confirm this. But you don’t need to be an educational psychologist to work out that being the kid at school who grows up with two mummies is going to have issues. And quite apart from that it simply doesn’t match up to God’s ideal of a father and a mother making their different contribution to the child in the context of a family.
c. The threat of cloning. The Bill allows the Government to introduce regulations in the future which permit a specific form of human reproductive cloning. Previously, any cloned human embryo had to be destroyed at 14 days. But in some circumstances this new Bill could change that. It allows cloning techniques using cell nuclear replacement to be used to prevent the transmission of some genetic diseases from the Mother to a child. The process will create a child with three parents since an egg cell from a second woman would be needed to develop the child. The child would therefore have two mothers and a father. It would also essentially be a clone of its ‘diseased’ mother. The moral and legal issues alone are bewildering let alone the likely psychological effects on the child. Worryingly, the Bill does not introduce regulations that limit this practice being extended beyond the avoidance of mitochondrial disease.
3. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the sanctity of human life
At the Marie Stopes Centre not far from our house a giant banner proudly proclaims, ‘Celebrating 25 years of reproductive healthcare’. I ought to complain to the Advertising Standards Agency for an utterly misleading promotion. It’s worth noting that there’s very little healthcare being offered to the unborn child. As a result of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the law on abortion is up for grabs. Both ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-abortion’ groups will table amendments. Rather perversely, given the underlying presupposition that it’s ethically acceptable to destroy human embryos, the Bill provides opportunities to improve the law on abortion and lessen the damage that it causes. This could be the case in the following three areas.
a. Reducing upper limits. At the present time the upper limit for a legal abortion is 24 weeks. However, there’s overwhelming public support for a reduction. In 2005 two thirds of the public, 63% of MPs and three quarters of women supported a reduction. In addition, a 2007 survey reported that 65% of GPs would welcome a reduction. Three factors have contributed to this. First, recent ultrasound images of the embryo in the early stages of development in the womb have made people realise that the embryo is simply an unborn child. Secondly, the bizarre juxtaposition in hospitals of neo-natal units preserving the lives of pre term children and abortion units where pregnancies are being terminated at the same gestation period. And thirdly, there’s mounting medical evidence that the foetus may be aware of pain at less than 20 weeks.
b. Ending abortion for disability. Currently the law allows abortion up to birth if there’s a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities such that the child could be classified as handicapped. Not only is this an outrageous devaluation of the value of human life but it discriminates against the disabled. Within the current legislation incredibly there’s no definition of what constitutes abnormalities. There’ve been reports of abortions being performed on children with minor medical conditions like a cleft lip and palate, webbed fingers and extra digits. It’s outrageous that these should be regarded as disabilities, especially when medical science can deal with them. We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that we’re destroying a person for having an extra toe.
c. Providing independent counselling. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently warned that having an abortion can damage a woman’s mental health and they should be told the risks before proceeding. Not all women are aware of the facts about abortion, the consequences of abortion or the alternatives to abortion. In order to protect the women who proceed to abortion under pressure from others, it’s imperative that they receive the guidance they need to make an informed decision. Criticism has been levelled at the accuracy of the advice provided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Accusations have been made that much of the counselling advice originates with proponents of the abortion industry. Therefore in the presence of vested interests it seems wise to provide statutory independent guidance for all women seeking an abortion.
Conclusion
Our country is not in a great place. Morally speaking. We can’t stand by and do nothing. I know that we're busy and we've all got slots on our plates. But this is our holocaust. Since 1967 6.7 million children have been terminated. It's genocide. In years to come our Grandchildren may ask us how this could have happened. They'll ask what we did and what the churches we belonged to did. And what will we say? Will they be satisfied with our comments about busyness. I hope not. We have an opportunity to speak the truth and stem the tide. So what should we do? There are three simple things that we could do that won't take too much effort. We could pray, pester and protest.
1. We should pray because God has not stopped ruling His world. He alone has the power to reverse the downward trend into immorality that this country is witnessing and participating in. Pray that there’s widespread media coverage of these issues and that the dissenting voices are heard loud and clear. Pray that God would have mercy on this nation so that evil is restrained. And pray that the pro-life Politicians and pro-Life groups working to oppose this Bill have the courage, wisdom and resources necessary to do so. Stop reading this now and pray.
2. We should pester our MP and bring him or her up to speed on our issues with this Bill. We can write a letter, send an e-mail or pitch up in person at a surgery to voice our displeasure at the liberalisation proposed in this Bill. Details on how to do this are available here.
3. We could protest outside Parliament on 14th May from 12.30pm onwards. The events is being organised by the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group. It’s being supported by organisations like CARE, Christian Medical Fellowship and Christian Concern for our Nation. Details are available here. We could also take a few minutes to sign the online petitions at http://www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org/.

Dear Friends - May

Dear Friends
Ever since I was converted in the early 1990s I’ve been part of a theological tradition that has looked somewhat suspiciously at church involvement in social concern. It’s not always been articulated in such negative terms. And in all honesty many of the fine Christian people I’ve known have been gloriously inconsistent in their approach to these matters. They warn of potential distractions to gospel ministry and yet have been wondrously generous with their time and money. In actuality even the conservative evangelical theological constituency that I so love and identify with are more involved in social concern than we profess to be. We send our letters of to our Member of Parliament, we sit as School Governors and we set up Crisis Pregnancy Centres.

In recent weeks three things have made an impact on me. They’ve been very helpful in thinking through how to develop a social conscience.

1. An article by the American theologian John Frame called, ‘In Defence of Christian Activism’.
In this article Frame argues that there is a solid biblical rationale to reject the fundamentalist argument that the church should abandon its social responsibility and simply preach the simple gospel. He cites Galatians 6:10 as chief amongst our reasons to be involved in ongoing social activism which he describes as ‘any Christian attempt to improve society’. He makes the observation that we are to show concern especially not exclusively for the household of faith. In other words, though the church is our primary concern it’s not our sole concern. That’s a helpful corrective. I‘ve also heard it argued that since this world is going to be destroyed then what we should be doing at the moment is not fixing society but rescuing a few souls from the fiery furnace. There’s a compelling logic to it. Please don’t hear me to be saying that we must lessen our evangelistic priorities in our personal lives, or in our church programmes. I have much sympathy with the slightly overstated fundamentalist caricature. However, God clearly expects us to be involved in other things than simply telling people the gospel. In his Great Commission Jesus told his followers that they were to make disciples of all nations. And he also told them to teach everything that he had commanded them. Jesus had a lot to say on a lot of issues. For example, he had much to say about the pursuit of mercy and justice amongst individuals.

2. A lecture and question and answer seesion with David Field from Oak Hill Theological College.
At the start of his lecture David made the point that there are both negative and affirmative ethical duties. A negative ethical duty is something that we must obey all of the time. For example, ‘Do not steal’ is a command from which we’re never exempted. It’s a 24/7 non-negotiable moral obligation. However, an affirmative ethical duty is something that we should pursue as much as we’re able to. It would be really good to do all of the time but since we’re finite people with limited opportunities and abilities we simply won’t be able to pull it off. For example, the command to ‘love your neighbour’ is something that we’re encouraged to do. But it’s not something that we can do all of the time because there are times when I must cease from loving my neighbour to take care of myself. This need not be selfish. We need to eat, sleep and work. God does not expect to keep all his affirmative ethical duties all of the time. We can’t. He knows that. We need to prioritise what we can do. And so we don’t need to feel guilty for what we’re unable to do. This is liberating. This perspective has been helpful as I’ve thought about what we should be doing as a church. There are so many things that we ought to be doing and that we’d like to be doing. But we can’t just yet. It wouldn’t be wise to attempt them because we don’t have the opportunities or resources to manage. And so we shouldn’t be beating ourselves up for the things we can’t do at our stage of church growth. But it also means that as God grows CCB we’ll need to keep revisiting the issue to find out whether there’s any spare capacity for expansion.

3. A sermon on the Good Samaritan by Tim Keller from Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York.
Keller argues three surprising things from Jesus’ story. First, he argues that showing mercy is a mandate that Jesus has given to his church. He assumed that his people would meet basic human needs through human deeds. When he affirmed the religious lawyer’s summary of the requirements of God he affirmed the requirement to love our neighbour. Whereas the lawyer assumed that obedience to the law was a way to life, Jesus assumed that the law was a way of life. And so loving our neighbour is a sure sign that Jesus has put his Spirit in our hearts. Secondly, he demonstrates the vast magnitude of Jesus’ command to love our neighbour. We tend to regulate Jesus’ command by wanting to restrict the category of neighbour, by limiting the circumstances in which we’re to show love and by inhibiting what we’re required to do. Thirdly, he argues that the motivation for loving our neighbour is not duty but the gospel. It is only when we’ve experienced undeserved, self sacrificial love from an enemy that we’ll be moved to show it to others. As Keller persuasively points out this is what every Christian has experienced through Christ. Jesus refused to put limits on his love when he came to die for us. It is the gospel that drives the kind of radical ‘neighbour’ love that’s exemplified by the Good Samaritan.

There are still questions to be asked about what this means for our personal lives and for our church programmes. How this is worked through in concrete terms is a matter of prayerful reflection and taking wise counsel. At the very least we need to recommit ourselves to praying for and supporting Options and we should seek to be informed on the legislative issues that the Christian Institute or Christian Concern for our Nation send out. But perhaps the first thing to do is to seek to be a good neighbour where we live. Imagine what it’d do for the house prices if there were a couple of Good Samaritans in your street. That’s infinitely more influential than having a Waitrose in the High Street!

With best wishes in Christ

richard

Friday Night Socials

Celebrate the last Friday of the month in style! Starting on Friday 28th March, and continuing every month thereafter, come and join a bunch of people from across the Co-Mission congregations for probably some drinks, possibly some food, and definitely some fun!

The venue for Friday 28th March is the very stylish bar at The Grosvenor Hotel, Buckingham Palace Road, next to Victoria Station, SW1W 0SJ, kicking off at 7:30pm. Contact Olivia Dunigan (07813 099229 / via Facebook) or Tim Doyle (07866 491983 / tim.doyle@canadalife.co.uk ) for more information. Hope to see you there!