quote:

---

Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
Letting them fall into disrepair or allowing them to become merely museums would be like suggesting that the Bach B Minor mass is not really important any more because its getting on for 400 years old. Or saying that those drawings made by early Christians on the walls of the Catacombs don't really matter. Or saying that all that stuff Michelangelo painted is just a load of old painting really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
In fact, the "evangelistic service" is in my opinion almost entirely useless, both as a means of outreach and as a vehicle for communal worship. Church buildings are there for the support and nourishment of Christians; cathedrals doubly so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
Letting them fall into disrepair or allowing them to become merely museums would be like suggesting that the Bach B Minor mass is not really important any more because its getting on for 400 years old. Or saying that those drawings made by early Christians on the walls of the Catacombs don't really matter. Or saying that all that stuff Michelangelo painted is just a load of old painting really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
large buildings which, as Wood so rightly said, aren't actually helping us reach people.

---

quote:

---

I ask this because frankly,, given the culture in which we live, church buildings themselves are almost entirely the province of Christians meeting together to worship in spirit and in truth; evangelistic outreach as such is best served outside of church services, either by individuals or by organised groups.

In fact, the "evangelistic service" is in my opinion almost entirely useless, both as a means of outreach and as a vehicle for communal worship. Church buildings are there for the support and nourishment of Christians; cathedrals doubly so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
large buildings which, as Wood so rightly said, aren't actually helping us reach people.

---

Did Wood say that these large buildings (or any large buildings) aren't actually helping us reach people? I seem to have missed that. Wood, did you actually say that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I don't believe people see the glory of God in buildings, no matter how grand they are - but in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wood said this

quote:

---

I ask this because frankly,, given the culture in which we live, church buildings themselves are almost entirely the province of Christians meeting together to worship in spirit and in truth; evangelistic outreach as such is best served outside of church services, either by individuals or by organised groups.

In fact, the "evangelistic service" is in my opinion almost entirely useless, both as a means of outreach and as a vehicle for communal worship. Church buildings are there for the support and nourishment of Christians; cathedrals doubly so.

---

Perhaps I misunderstood? Wood?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Ok, my OP didn't really get to the point.

I have no doubt that some people are helped by cathedrals. I was not suggesting that because I am not we should close them down.
What I was thinking, is that they are a very expensive way of not doing what (IMO) we should be doing; they do not lend themselves to ministry amongst the poor, or to postmodern kids IME. They seem to do very little (at least where I live) to reach the middle aged and old, because they are cold and inaccessible to families.
So yes, while I can see that some people find them useful, is it really worth our while paying all this money for them instead of for - say homeless or student ministry, housing old people, and so on and so forth?
I ask because a lot of the anti-Jensen stuff in MW, rested on the assumption that there is a pre assumed right for things to be as they have always been. Esepcially when it comes to cathedrals.
Now if we can see that they are bringing people to Christ, then spend the money - but considering how much else we have to do, if they don't - well why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It wouldn't. It would be like saying, as we do with those things, these places are beautiful and should be preserved, while not being particularly useful any more.

---

quote:

---

I suppose some of this is my eccesiology - but I don't believe people see the glory of God in buildings, no matter how grand they are - but in Jesus. So it is Jesus being presented in a way people can understand that will display God's glory. if cathedrals are aiming to do that job, they will, surely, always fail?

---

quote:

---

Making them museums wouldn't be getting rid of our story - far from it, it would be preserving it, but losing the burden of large buildings which, as Wood so rightly said, aren't actually helping us reach people.

---

quote:

---

All of the things - stained glass, music, community actvity can be done in these buildings without Christians having to spend thousands of pounds/dollars preserving them. Why should we?

---

quote:

---

From the 'Old church/new church thread: Anselmina: Why shouldn't the gospel be proclaimed and the Lord worshipped in a fantastically historical building representative of some of the best God-given arts and skills given to mankind down through the centuries, and what's more dedicated to his glory. And to see a cathedral as somehow being divorced from the community that it is inevitably part of is a bit like saying that 'church' is nothing more than a building. When one looks at a cathedral building you see nothing more than a tiny tip of a very large community and its often wide-reaching influence on the city it serves.

Surely, we are able to see beyond fashions of stonework and architecture to see through to the reality of gospel work and missioning that has been going on, and continues?

Archive the building by all means, but where are you going to put the people who worship there, visit during the week to pray or keep silence or leave prayer requests, who sleep by the boilers during winter, who wander in to ask questions of the clergy or vergers or lay workers, or scrounge a sandwich or a cup of tea off the Archdeacon or canon-in-residence? Where do the community exhibitions for local art work, industry and business, and social issues go; the children have their Holy Week or Advent workshops; the bellringers, singers, composers, musicians learn their craft specifically to the glory of God? Where else will a venue for huge services, and doubling as concert hall, community hall be as easily and accessibly found? And - here's the point - where can we find all this in the one building, right there in the centre of a city population? We'd have to build a great big building..... but wait, we already have. It's the cathedral, and what do you know it's already got God's name on it.
<snippety snip>

Many people do indeed make the mistake of looking at a church building, as if it were a National Trust building; merely representative of a way of life that is no longer applicable or useful, to be consigned to museum-status, without taking into account the community and fellowship life that often revolves around the work and witness of the members of the congregation who meet there. A very big mistake to make.

---

quote:

---

I suppose some of this is my eccesiology - but I don't believe people see the glory of God in buildings, no matter how grand they are - but in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

So you're saying that art is not useful?

---

quote:

---

What I was thinking, is that they are a very expensive way of not doing what (IMO) we should be doing; they do not lend themselves to ministry amongst the poor, or to postmodern kids IME. They seem to do very little (at least where I live) to reach the middle aged and old, because they are cold and inaccessible to families.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wood - yes. That is my assumption. I do think while a church activity can't be justified in terms of reaching people who don't know Jesus with hos message and practical demonstrations thereof, then they have to be rethunk. No matter how much Christians like them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
All of the things - stained glass, music, community actvity can be done in these buildings without Christians having to spend thousands of pounds/dollars preserving them. Why should we?

---

Cathedral staff really must get out of that nasty habit of forcing people in through the doors by gunpoint so they just have to contribute to the upkeep of the building .

If putting a couple of quid into the donations or entrance fee box is your objection - don't do it, or don't visit Cathedrals. Most Cathedral communities have 'Friends of St.....' organizations who are dedicated to fund-raising for their church, and like any ordinary congregation will have people who gift-aid, freewill donate, bequest money etc.

If it's the scandal of your money going to a cause you don't understand or believe in, then keep it in your pocket. Or lobby the Lottery or, English Heritage or other publicly funded organizations that sometimes pass on dosh to churches.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Because I want to avoid re-creating the wheel I've copied my last response to Leprechaun's last angst-ridden plea of 'why Cathedrals'. (I wouldn't mind knowing what specifically Leprechaun has against Cathedral churches and their communities. If they're such a dreadful thing then just put together a protest group and form a charity; something like Christians Against Keeping Cathedrals might give people the right idea of what you're about. Or alternatively get properly and actively involved with a Cathedral community and find out first-hand what they're for.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Did you read my post, Lep? Just wondering. I think Cathedrals are a wonderful tool for evangelism.

---

GF, yes I did. I pray that there are many more like you. I have never met another one. I am willing to concede that a lack of research may be the root of my problem.

Wood, at least part of the Lord's supper's purpose is to "proclaim the Lord's death". And all of the things you mention are for the encouragement of Christians, but why do Christians need encouraged? So that they will be more effective witnesses, in word and deed surely. In sense of course there is much more "to it" than what you say, but in a sense, not that much more.

Ken, GF has alerted me to the "advertising potential" of cathedrals. He is the first I have ever come across. As I say, that may be lack of research on my part, but many many non-Christians I know have been to cathedrals to visit and never once considered Jesus. That's my beef.

And I'm glad to hear that there are cathedrals doing good stuff, I really am. The ones I have lived bside (now, in total, 3) did nothing of the sort that I could see, despite my best efforts at finding out. If I have based my view on an unrepresentative sample I apologise.
My point remains, however, that there would be many many cheaper ways of doing the same thing. Call me a Thatcherite if you will, but that seems a good enough reason to me to ask the question.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Oh come on! One can't ask the question without being accused of being on a campaign?
I, as a nonconformist, church that meets in a school, type, am genuinely confounded by the huge amounts of money the C of E pays towards maintaining these huge edifices. I genuinely want to know what benefit they serve to the church's mission. I was under the impression that finding out what others think was the point of the Ship.

And I know some of these things were addressed on another thread, but mixed in with a whole lot of stuff, and I wanted to have a discussion just about this. Why is that such an irritation to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Wood - yes. That is my assumption. I do think while a church activity can't be justified in terms of reaching people who don't know Jesus with hos message and practical demonstrations thereof, then they have to be rethunk. No matter how much Christians like them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
It's a curious effect of having a state religion that tried to control other churches' practices deemed to be seditious by making it illegal to hold "church" in a non-public setting - we think that attendance at a church service is a right rather than a duty of discipleship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Actually, I think my point was that they're not actually for evangelism, and that evangelistic services/ meetings are these days largely ineffective, irrespective of where they're held.

---

quote:

---

They have an entirely different purpose, being for the nourishment of believers meeting together to worship. Which was one of the things the church was supposed to do, last time I checked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
ST - Nothing you say makes me see why Christians should be under an obligation to preserve and keep and pay for these buildings.

---

quote:

---

And certainly no reason why they should continue to run them the same way forever.

---

quote:

---

And you can say "utter rubbish" all you like -

---

Thankyou. I will.

quote:

---

but is your friend that you took with you to Kings a Christian today?

---

quote:

---

And if so is it REALLY because of his impression of God from that building rather than an encounter with the living Lord Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
I don't really know the answer to Leprechaun's economic dilemma.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Oh come on! One can't ask the question without being accused of being on a campaign?

---

<sigh> I suppose you couldn't have worked out by reading the emboldened capital letters of the suggested title for your 'campaign' that I was being sarcastic ?

And I didn't accuse you of being on a campaign (oh, the joy of reading what is actually written); I suggested that if it was something you really did feel strongly about you might start a protest group.

quote:

---

I, as a nonconformist, church that meets in a school, type, am genuinely confounded by the huge amounts of money the C of E pays towards maintaining these huge edifices. I genuinely want to know what benefit they serve to the church's mission. I was under the impression that finding out what others think was the point of the Ship.

---

And have there been answers offered? Yes? On this thread as with your other 'I personally don't see the point of it so why does it still exist' thread? Yes? However, you don't appear to be finding out 'what others think'; you appear to be saying that something that, at best you don't understand, and at worst you have judged to be unfit, shouldn't be around, and how can this atrocity possibly be justified. That's the tone I get from your posts. And that's the tone I'm responding to.

I'm still interested in why you seem to be so aggrieved that a particular member of the Church family should be determined to keep a rather successful flagship style of ministry going, mainly out of their own pocket and voluntary donation. JOKE ALERT: Hit by a falling piece of masonry one day as you passed by a Cathedral ?

quote:

---

And I know some of these things were addressed on another thread, but mixed in with a whole lot of stuff, and I wanted to have a discussion just about this. Why is that such an irritation to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Please, please, please stop being so paranoid. You're clearly a nice guy. So why do you respond with such suspicion to what people are saying? There isn't a liberal conspiracy here. Nor are we out to get you. You wanted dialogue; you got dialogue, in the form of robust debate...

...And what about the rest of us? She isn't the only one who has engaged with your question. You wanted to know what we think, you got it. Now, please, dialogue with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[snip]
What I was thinking, is that they are a very expensive way of not doing what (IMO) we should be doing; they do not lend themselves to ministry amongst the poor, or to postmodern kids IME. They seem to do very little (at least where I live) to reach the middle aged and old, because they are cold and inaccessible to families.
So yes, while I can see that some people find them useful, is it really worth our while paying all this money for them instead of for - say homeless or student ministry, housing old people, and so on and so forth?
[snip]
Now if we can see that they are bringing people to Christ, then spend the money - but considering how much else we have to do, if they don't - well why?

---

As one of those pomo kids... HEY! Don't you dare touch my cathedral!

I do have to admit, my experience with cathedrals in the United States is a bit different than with European cathedrals; my diocese dates to the late 19th c. but the building was erected in 1955 in the middle of downtown Sacramento. It only seats 750 people in the main sanctuary. The classroom buildings and attached medical center are at least four times larger than the cathedral itself. The classrooms are used by all sorts of community groups, and the Cathedral itself sponsors lecture series and free music concerts of sacred and secular music that are open to the public (and garner large turnouts). There are homeless outreaches, outreaches to the nearby business community, a strong Recovery ministry, and the Cathedral supports a local elementary school with volunteers and fundraising. From my experience, when you come to an event or use one of the services at the Cathedral, you are not asked, "Do you accept Jesus as your personal savior; watch out, your response will affect your level of service." which, unfortunately, I have seen happen at an evangelical pentecostal church I was involved with. However, the Cathedral and its community defintely are showing Christ to the world.

Here's an idea: you live near a cathedral. Infiltrate them. See where they need help in explaining the Good News. Explain Jesus' message to feed, clothe, bury, love. Open them up to families and poor and us poor pomo kids. (However, if you convince them to take down the crucifix for a OHP screen, you will have to answer to me. )
 

---

Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 
When I was 15, I met God for the first time. It was raining, I was in a field in the middle of nowhere and I was crying because I thought no-one loved me. Out of nowhere, God said "but I do". Nothing else: He told me nothing about Jesus, or about the cost of discipleship, or whatever. Just "but I do".

Flash forward five years. Five years of trying to make sense of this experience. Having done some research, I'd decided that Christianity seemed to come closest to stating what I believed and I was interested in finding out more, but I was in no way a Christian. I'd tried a few different churches and none of them had done anything for me.

Easter Eve 2002 I decide to give it another go. Well that's half true, a quater true probably. The other three quarters of the truth: I decide to go and listen to a free concert to be given that evening in a beautiful building. That night in the cathedral was the second time I met God, and that time he affirmed His presence in and His assent to that whole service. That was when I became a Christian. Drawn by the music and the beauty and the timelessness and awaken by and through the music and the beauty and timelessness.

So, don't say cathedrals are useless for evangelism. Had I not been drawn to the cathedral, I would never have been drawn to worship: I wouldn't have been baptised that summer, confirmed a year later, I wouldn't be singing or serving or have just preached my first sermon or have sat through the night talking to a friend about Jesus or have kneeled with another friend praying when they came to my flat traumatised.

I'm involved in a parish church now. On a community level it nourishes me in ways the cathedral wouldn't have been able to. But I still go back some times, because I need to. If you make that cathedral a museum, you historify my conversion, you historify my faith.

Of course I (as part of the church) am growing. I'm constantly surprised by where I can find God. Leprechaun, I feel desperately sorry for you if you can't see how cathedrals express God, if you're not letting him speak to you in that way. I imagine, if you knew how I cringe at some forms of worship you probably find very nourishing, you'd feel sorry for me too. I feel ashamed of this. I pray every day for God to perfect me in my weaknesses and for me to be able to experience Him in every which way out there. Tonight, I'll pray the same for you.

What will you do if He answers my prayer?
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by phoenix_811:
Um, sorry if I'm a bit technical here, but isn't a cathedral any place that is the seat of a bishop? A cathedral could be a small shack if it is the main place that a bishop presides. I like worshiping in the big gothic cathedrals because, often, the accoustics are amazing and I always feel more worshipful when music is resounding. And they do tend to be places with deep spiritual roots and have worship conducive artwork and architecture. But I'm not sure that those qualities are what make them cathedrals. (Check the dictionary).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Cathedrals however, are intimately linked with bishops. In the Catholic tradition, bishops are physically associated with a territory, and a physical building, in which one finds a throne (the cathedra) upon which the bishop sits, symbolizing the authority of one bishop over that territory.

---

quote:

---

but many many non-Christians I know have been to cathedrals to visit and never once considered Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I however think that Bishops should provide leadership in the Cathedrals because only then is their leadership in the diocese truly grounded in the local church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I however think that Bishops should provide leadership in the Cathedrals because only then is their leadership in the diocese truly grounded in the local church.

---

We could make suffragans the priests in charge of whichever parishes in their area have an interregnum. That'd speed things up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Spawn,

we could start the SSAD - the Society for the Sequestration of Archdeacons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

Your posts are full of statements that cathedrals don't reach people; people aren't touched or moved by cathedrals, etc. And, yes, that's 'in your opinion' and 'in your experience' which is fair enough. But as this and the other thread clearly shows your opinion is just one of many, and your experience is, at least, limited in this area, as your own comments admit. If you want people to share your anxiety with CofE spending on Cathedral build you need to come up with something with a bit of substance and persuasion to it.

All you've managed so far, in essence, is 'cathedrals (about which I know very little) don't do the job I think they should be doing, so why shouldn't we get rid of them?'

I guess I'm irritated because I get the impression you really only want to complain about something you personally don't understand, and are not prepared to put up a cogent argument to justify your view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Or SSADASS - the Society for the Sequestration of Archdeacons and Abolution of SuffraganS

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
When I worked for a church, the nearest thing the cathedral did to an evangelistic event was to have J John speaking on the 10 commandments, which quite frankly I would rather chew my arm off than take a non-Christian to hear.

---

Are you objecting to him or the topic?

He's been very good when I've heard him. Probably exactly the sort of preacher I'd want youngish non-Christians to hear.

Woudl you rather he preached on fluffy bunnies?
 

---

Posted by birdie. (# 2173) on :
 
I can't really articulate what I want to say here very well, and really it's just a case of agreeing with most of what has been said.

I come at this from both sides of the fence, as it were, as I worship at an independent church but work for the anglican church, within the system of controls relating to the care of church buildings, and with particular reference to cathedrals.

I could wax lyrical for hours on how fantastic cathedrals (and in fact pretty much any ancient church buildings) are and how I, for one, have a palpable sense of the prayer and worship which has gone on for hundreds or a thousand years there when I walk into one.

I'll spare you that but I do think that, and I think this point has been well made already, that Leprechaun's point falls down on the question of economics - it's not the cathedrals which are a huge drain on the resources of the church, it's fantastic little places like this and others like it.

For many people, whether we like it or not, cathedrals and historic church buildings are what they think of when we say 'church'. My church meets in a converted cinema, but that's not the place people will go when they want a quiet place to be and think and listen. It's not the place they'll go after something like September 11th when they want to do something, even if they don't know what that something is. They'll go to the nice pointy building two doors down.

There are churches meeting in schools and halls and peoples' homes everywhere, and good for them, but if you handed the cathedrals or historic church buildings over to the National Trust, most people would not know where the churches were any more. They would think there were no churches. And so we would be taking away an important witness to the historic faith of our towns and cities.

I'll shut up now.

b

[eta: I cross-posted with loads of people here... i'd better read their comments now!]

[ 10. May 2004, 18:08: Message edited by: birdie. ]
 

---

Posted by Luna (# 2002) on :
 
"Evangelism" scares me. I like to walk in, look around, take my time to get comfortable - too often when visiting a church I feel like I'm being assaulted. So cathedrals are perfect for me.

A cathedral is one of the few things that convinces me that Christianity is to be taken seriously. Matter matters - if Christ deigned to take on humanity, surely he is concerned with the way that the body interacts with the world. We're not pure spirit. I think that worship, wherever it happens, should engage as many senses as possible so as to fully acquaint one with the beauty and glory of God. It seems to me that cathedrals, even the neglected ones, do this quite while.

Twanging guitars and PowerPoint sermons - some people love them, but they have always mystified me and I avoid them like the plague. Services with icons and incense are my cup of tea but aren't for everybody and can often be hard to find in English. If I were to set foot in a church again, I would go somewhere like Ely cathedral, which I visited last year. It's open and welcoming all day long and astoundingly beautiful. I'll never forget hearing the strains of the choir practicing while I stood in the nave. The general sanctity and peace I experienced during a few hours in a stone "edifice" far outweigh anything else I have experienced in the last three years.

Art and architecture do leave a lasting impact on people, especially when they are part of a living community.

Luna
 

---

Posted by amw (# 5777) on :
 
Luna just said everything I wanted to say!

amw
 

---

Posted by Katherine F. (aka puritybrown) (# 5811) on :
 
Leprechaun said:

quote:

---

And the catalyst for all of this, was the thread discussing the Dean of a cathedral who has decided to use the space for a growing Gospel ministry, and is being rounded on, on all sides, for such a move. This makes no sense to me.

---

They weren't rounding on him for moving his service to the cathedral -- they were rounding on him for abolishing the traditional Sunday Evensong in favour of this service, which didn't need to be held in a cathedral.

Leprechaun, your own experience hasn't shown you anything positive about cathedrals and has shown you negative things -- and if that were representative, it would certainly be grounds for abandoning cathedrals to the National Trust. But the point of all the opposing posts on this thread is to offer a counterweight to your own experience -- to show that the situation you describe is not universal.

You say "this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant" (my emphasis). But this is precisely the question at issue. None of us here has enough information to be able to say either "the majority of cathedrals provide valuable services to the congregation, are the occasion of many conversions, and do not drain the resources of the diocese" or "the majority of cathedrals are empty most days and their upkeep is absurdly out of proportion to the amount of good they do". All we have is competing anecdotes, which are interesting to read but not conclusive.

At least concede that the things others have been saying in support of cathedrals amount to more than "we like them".
 

---

Posted by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :
 
Primarily the cathedral is the seat of the Bishop as it contains his throne or 'cathedra.' However, a good cathedral acts as a centre of musical and liturgical excellence as well as a place of spirituality, study and hospitality.


 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Now you're talking!
What other church is offering decent food for hardpressed office workers in their lunch breaks?
You can cram in a recital AND lunch at some of these places.........
 

---

Posted by English Ploughboy. (# 4205) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LydaRose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance

---

What springs to mind is the jar of expensive ungent lavished on Jesus' feet. Was it necessary, practical? Did it help the poor or gather more disciples? No. It was a statement of love in extravagance.

I think cathedrals are a tool for evangelism. Not in isolation, of course, but joined with the witness of thoughtful Christians. As people have mentioned, the unchurched visit cathedrals all the time. People who will run speedily from earnest proselytizers, I known to be seduced by a combination of beautiful surroundings, a quiet word of friendship, and time. Evangelism is not one-size-fits-all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But while "I don't like them" is not an argument for their closing "A very small minority of people are helped by them" is not a good enough argument, IMO, for keeping them open when the C of E is obviously in such financial dire straits.

[snip]

You will note in my OP, I was asking for reasons why I shouldn't take this view. I want to be convinced. But, as I have said " a few of us like pretty stained glass and choral music under gothic arches" is not good enough. Some people have told encouraging stories about how the ministry of cathedrals has helped bring them to Christ. I am glad. But my question is still - is this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant, one that the church should be subsidising considering its manifest failure to reach today's culture, and its obviously over stretched resources?

---

quote:

---

And the catalyst for all of this, was the thread discussing the Dean of a cathedral who has decided to use the space for a growing Gospel ministry, and is being rounded on, on all sides, for such a move. This makes no sense to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Chill.

---

quote:

---

Back to one of the points you made earlier in the thread. You questioned Lep on whether evangelism was the be-all-and-end-all. Apart from being uncomfortable with compartmentalising aspects of the Christian life, it is extremely difficult to make the case that evangelism isn't a first-order priority for the Christian. Of course, there are aspects of worship which are for the 'initiated' but this does not mean that they should not also serve outreach. Churches should never become clubs for the likeminded, but open, welcoming communities dedicated to mission and evangelism.

---

quote:

---

What Alan said was this:
And, anyone who tries to seperate the nourishment of believers from action is putting asunder something of value. Put simply, you can't really be an effective evangelist without the support of a church to nourish your spiritual life. You might do good work feeding the poor and healing the sick, but without the church feeding and healing you in worship and teaching can you continue to do that and show the love of Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
these places are beautiful and should be preserved, while not being particularly useful any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Chill.

---

If I wasn't involved in this discussion (and therefore not hosting it), you'd get a slap for posting in a smug and derisive manner.

But I am. So you won't.

---

quote:

---

Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti. Most Cathedrals are not doing that terribly well.

---

quote:

---

They will cease to be places of Christian worship unless they get their act together.

---

quote:

---

However I don't agree with Lep that the Church should hand them over. They are too valuable in terms of spiritual presence, memory, heritage and excellence to make them museums without a fight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LydaRose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:
I concur with all above who marvel at the wonders of the Gothic arch. Our church is housed in a building with rather dumpy Norman arches, and has its own story to tell. However they do cost an arm and a leg to keep maintained and I think the problem with all these buildings is: are we actually being good stewards with our money when we could employ say another full time christian worker or feed and school a few hundred people in Africa with the money we spend maintaining them. We try to do both but struggle to find the balance

---

What springs to mind is the jar of expensive ungent lavished on Jesus' feet. Was it necessary, practical? Did it help the poor or gather more disciples? No. It was a statement of love in extravagance.

I think cathedrals are a tool for evangelism. Not in isolation, of course, but joined with the witness of thoughtful Christians. As people have mentioned, the unchurched visit cathedrals all the time. People who will run speedily from earnest proselytizers, I known to be seduced by a combination of beautiful surroundings, a quiet word of friendship, and time. Evangelism is not one-size-fits-all.

---

You can worship the builing rather than what it represents though second poem

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And you can say "utter rubbish" all you like - but is your friend that you took with you to Kings a Christian today? And if so is it REALLY because of his impression of God from that building rather than an encounter with the living Lord Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saviour Tortoise:
Genuine question - any proof of this? As I said further up the thread. I've heard it said on more than one occaision that cathedrals are one of the few places where congregations have grown over the last 10 years. This may be rubbish, but I'm sure that if any one has access to the figures to discredit or back up the statement you will have, Spawn.

---

quote:

---

What would "getting their act together" entail?

IME they're generally better attended than your average parish church. Again, no stats so I may be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Also, I'm interested you say they're valuable in monetary terms. That would discount one of Lep's objections. Any stats available to back that one up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't have time to look up the statistics now, but yes the folks at the Church House statistics office have been getting excited about the slightly greater numbers attending Cathedral services. As far as I know there's been no in-depth analysis of what this amounts to.

---

quote:

---

On one level doing better at what they do now.
...
[snipped list of ways in which cathedrals can improve on what they're doing]
...

---

quote:

---

No I wasn't making the point in monetary terms. If we were starting from scratch in purely monetary terms we wouldn't build cathedrals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Just to let you know. I am not an Anglican now. But I used to work for a large Anglican church within a stone's throw of a cathedral. I went to a university in which a cathedral was a university building. I now help to run a church plant within a stone's throw of 2 cathedrals (which probably gives away where it is), and before we set up I did actually do quite a bit of looking in to what they did in the area.
At my university, the cathedral held poorly attended inaccessible services, for the benefit ISTM for the choir and a few fellows only. This was while students, young people, the homeless and the old flocked to two evangelical churches across the road.
At least some of the money given by members of those churches went towards the upkeep of the white elephant in the pretty cloister.

---

So because, in your opinion and maybe also in truth, a cathedral you know of isn't working up to capacity, this means all cathedral communities should disband? Anecdotal evidence is always interesting and usually proves a point, but in this case it only proves the point that in your opinion one cathedral isn't doing the job you think it should be doing. No doubt there are others. Do they cancel the effective ones out?

I'm impressed, btw - and while we're into anecdotes - that the two evangelical churches attracted the homeless and the old. In one particular Cathedral city I know, the homeless went to the Cathedral - not usually for worship it has to be said but for the boilers, which they would lie beside, during the day, all the time the Cathedral was open. Also, cadging food off the cathedral staff. The most 'successful' evangelical church in the city, otoh, a very lively place was peopled conspicuously by the young, professional and well-off. But I don't think any the worse of that church, nevertheless !

quote:

---

When I worked for a church, the nearest thing the cathedral did to an evangelistic event was to have J John speaking on the 10 commandments, which quite frankly I would rather chew my arm off than take a non-Christian to hear.

---

quote:

---

One of the cathedrals I work near now sponges off the government agency I work for for the upkeep of its poor design, holds 8 services in a week, which according to its own report 250 people attend altogether, and, by the record of the collection they give something like 25p each to its upkeep. I have been to services in the other, and it was very beautiful choral music, but the speaker made no mention of Jesus.
I hope and pray this is not the case for every cathedral in the country,

---

quote:

---

but my experience of cathedrals is that they are very beautiful and historic centres for culture. Nothing more.

---

Okay, so in your experience God can't be seen in the faith, lives and work of a Cathedral community. So you only manage to see the building without becoming conscious of the rest of the ice-berg beneath the 'tip'. So maybe in time your experience will widen to include other people's experiences, such as the ones expressed on this thread, as being equally as valid as yours in some way. Particularly those who have told you explicitly why Cathedrals are important and what they're for - just as you asked. (So we should all hope to live so long !)

quote:

---

In fact, nearly all my friends at university went to visit the cathedral at some point, and none ever had the response of considering the person of Jesus, and his claim on their life.

---

quote:

---

I am glad that there are those who are helped by the ministry of cathedrals. I have been encouraged to find out about them on this thread. But while "I don't like them" is not an argument for their closing "A very small minority of people are helped by them" is not a good enough argument,IMO, for keeping them open when the C of E is obviously in such financial dire straits.

---

quote:

---

At Christmas I received the one and only correspondence I have ever had from my parish church. It made no mention of God, and asked for money (not knowing anything about me) for the church roof.

---

Suitably damning of the local parish church. I'm sure it provided much opportunity for righteous ire and the, no doubt, reluctant condemnation of a group of people you don't know (apart from the Treasurer who was after your money ). If you're offended, write and complain. Otherwise, throw it in the bin and move on. But the relevance of that to this thread is what?

quote:

---

If this is the case, and, ISTM cathedral style worship does very little, if anything to bring committed Christians into the church, then I have no problem selling the cathedrals to museum hood, and the congregation meeting in a school hall, so that all the non-Christians in my street don't have to get a one off begging letter from our church that makes no effort to share the Gospel.

---

quote:

---

You will note in my OP, I was asking for reasons why I shouldn't take this view. I want to be convinced.

---

quote:

---

But, as I have said " a few of us like pretty stained glass and choral music under gothic arches" is not good enough. Some people have told encouraging stories about how the ministry of cathedrals has helped bring them to Christ. I am glad. But my question is still - is this model of ministry, which, compared to so many other models seems numerically insignificant, one that the church should be subsidising considering its manifest failure to reach today's culture, and its obviously over stretched resources?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
Cathedrals were built ad majoram gloriam dei 'to the greater glory of God' (I think I've got my Latin correct)

---

Almost, my dear. Ad majorem gloriam Dei would be more like it. The comparative degree of most adjectives uses what we pendants call the third declension.

---

And anyway it's usually ordered "Ad majorem Dei gloriam". So there.

Anselmina, your last post was gloriously to the point.

CB
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Without wishing to be pedantic, just what is Amanda pendant from?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Without wishing to be pedantic, just what is Amanda pendant from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Just because hardly anyone ever comes to faith in a church meeting anywhere (and I mean anywhere - cathedral, parish church or New Covenant Church meeting in a school hall like the one one of my lodgers goes to) anymore, it doesn't mean that its superfluous.

---

Churches in which hardly anyone comes to faith - die. I am not suggesting that people have to come to faith in a church meeting - although in my experience many people do - but the related activities of that church have to draw people into faith. Churches have to be open and supportive of non-believers, fringe believers or new believers - not just for the cognoscenti.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I'm not saying that they should be for the cognoscenti, and you're totally failing to get my point here.

I'll put it in short sentences.

---

quote:

---

1. People do not come to faith in church services much. It's rare and it's getting rarer. Your experience is baffling and totally counter to my experience and the experience of everyone I know (unless you go to one of the few evangelical SuperChurches that are out there - HTB, All Souls Langham Place, etc - which are very much exceptions to the obvious rule. Or your church is a freak).

2. This DOES NOT EQUAL people not coming to faith through churches. Yes, of course they come to faith through churches. People come to faith through the witness of churches and individual Christians, as expressed outside of the service. I'd have thought that you of all people would realise that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
In one particular Cathedral city I know, the homeless went to the Cathedral - not usually for worship it has to be said but for the boilers, which they would lie beside, during the day, all the time the Cathedral was open. Also, cadging food off the cathedral staff. The most 'successful' evangelical church in the city, otoh, a very lively place was peopled conspicuously by the young, professional and well-off. But I don't think any the worse of that church, nevertheless !

---

I really am glad to hear that is the case. Nevertheless, a very expensive, and not exactly user friendly homeless shelter?

quote:

---

I don't know how I can keep repeating what I and others have said already without sending people to sleep but: 'evangelistic events' aren't the be-all and end-all of evangelism within the church. If one knows nothing about the pastoral mission and ministry of a specific congregation, making any comment about how effective their witness is to Christ carries little weight.

---

quote:

---

So maybe in time your experience will widen to include other people's experiences, such as the ones expressed on this thread, as being equally as valid as yours in some way. Particularly those who have told you explicitly why Cathedrals are important and what they're for - just as you asked. (So we should all hope to live so long !)

---

quote:

---

Calculate the percentage that attend the church you're involved with - and then, by your own lights, get the 'For Sale' signs out. When are we ever going to get away from these silly number games.

---

quote:

---

Then it'll be useful for you to hear that you come across as someone, who far from wanting to be convinced, has got a real problem with how Church of England worshippers manage their finance and fabric, and enable their particular tradition of worship. It really, really seems to matter to you for some reason.

---

quote:

---

for example, I think that cathedrals do need to somehow 'justify' the expense that they are to their people, and other organizations which support them; but I also believe that many, if not most, Cathedrals actually do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think I'm failing to get the point and I can do without being patronised.

---

quote:

---

Let's agree first of all that becoming a disciple of Christ isn't necessarily about a Damascus experience, but is more normally a process of change and acceptance and being accepted.

---

quote:

---

You and I can probably also agree that the overwhelming experience of conversion these days is that of belonging before believing in Jesus and following him.

---

quote:

---

I happen to think that churches of every complexion should revisit their prejudices against bringing out an evangelistic element in their church services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Problem is, I go to an evangelical Baptist church where we have regular "friends" services. They don't work. See my comment above. They still maintain the basic assumptions of a church service - we sing, people pray, there's a sermon.


Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
to fund the interests of a small group of people who are largely already Christians.

---

quote:

---

The fact is for 90% of visitors to the cathedral, it was a museum, and the building staff seemed to think it was ok that having all these people in the building and not telling them about Jesus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I see the type of services you talk about Wood as part of encouraging belonging and believing.

---

quote:

---

But they are still about belonging, by saying to people - "this is the way we do things round here, join in if you feel able, don't if you don't".

---

quote:

---

Its just like a normal service, but with more space for people to sit at the back with coffee if they want, and with everything we do being explained. Some people have become Christians in those services, but its been part of a longer process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
You don't patronise me, I don't patronise you back. If you ask to be patronised, you get patronised. You want to argue about my attitude further or give me more attitude, you know where the Hell board is.

---

quote:

---

The fact is, it doesn't matter what the style of worship is, people who aren't "churched" don't get it. To most people, a charismatic praisefest is just as confusing and alien as a Non-Communicating High Mass.

When people say "rubbish! People understand the Anglo-Catholic style" or "people find it easier to get into choruses", what they're actually saying is "I can't understand how people don't find my favoured style of worship as easy to comprehend as I do".

---

quote:

---

Now I'm not saying that church services shouldn't proclaim Jesus - it's what we do in communion after all - but I'm saying that services which arte for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ACOL-ite:
Apart from your complete dismissal of the many people who have posted here about the place of cathedrals in coming to Christ as part of an "insignificant" minority, you have seem to have completely failed to engage with the fact that "winning converts" is not the only part of the Church's mission.

So, in your view, what is the earthly good of Christianity? (and yes, I mean all those words literally).

---

I never said "insignificant". I said "small, and using a lot of resource". If it is small it doesn't stop it being significant. Neither does it stop it being expensive.
What is the earthly good of Christianity - to glorify God. Which is most effectively (but not exclusively) done through people coming to know and trust Jesus, but also through displays of his character in the life of his people. This, ISTM is primarily to do with love, rather than architecture.
Tell me this. And sorry if you feel you have answered this already, I have re read the thread but can't see it - but what ACTUAL part of the church's mission do cathedrals effectively (rather than as a by-product) contribute to, that could not be done in a better way?

Corpus - I am by no means suggesting that people should be challenged to accept Jesus there and then on the doorstep. But there is imagery and wording all over cathedrals that points to the Gospel (altar, Bibles, pictures of Jesus and apostles ministry) in a much less anodyne way than "this is for the glory of God". I have never yet been on a cathedral tour where this was explained. And the sad fact is, that most of our unchurched nation do not pick it up just by looking.
(I have been on a tour of an historical church where it was all clearly and respectfully explained, and it was excellent -I'd happily pay money out of my own pocket to keep that one going)

[Edited for quote UBB.]

[ 11. May 2004, 10:40: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Thanks for your considered reply, Leprechaun. You were very patient in wading through my humongous post! I'll be kinder with this one .

I think we must see the work of the Body of Christ in different ways, and that perhaps colours how we post. Ministry, to me, is more than proclamation as important as that is, and I would see Cathedral ministry as very much at the point where meets that potentially stuffy institutional 'clubby' and exclusive church membership - as represented by all those churches where 'belonging' is essential for acceptance - and those who simply drift in the direction of God because of who knows why. (He does move, after all, in mysterious ways !)

It's an area that many churches - regardless of denomination or churchmanship - rarely inhabit because they don't have the far reaching appeal and role that Cathedral churches often have, by virtue of the fact that they exist and function in such a unique way. For example, many people will assume that in order to attend a certain church they actually have to be a certain kind of Christian first. What use proclamation then?

Cathedrals are a different 'voice' of God, to the voice he uses when in other kinds of churches. But still singing the same tune, if only we could recognize it being played in a different key, or on a different instrument. Not a better voice, necessarily, but different. Only better insofar that human beings respond to different ways of being 'sung to'.

There are issues of expense and good use of resource and fidelity to the gospel, as you quite rightly point up. I think, however, that unless the very different and peculiar nature of a Cathedral community is understood and appreciated, it's quite difficult to come to a reasonable assessment of its effectiveness for the Kingdom.

Thanks for the discussion. I've found it really interesting and will, I promise, look around the next Cathedral I wander into with slightly different eyes!
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Wood let's agree to leave this personal crap out of it. I have no intention of calling you to Hell and I don't think anything I've said has indicated that I want to do that.

---

quote:

---

Your statements are overgeneralised. You seem to be suggesting that overtly evangelistic church services are aimed at recruiting the unchurched. I don't think so, they are aimed at the fringe, at drawing people into deeper commitment, or those who are seeking spiritually.

---

quote:

---

That implies a prior interest and often some kind of familiarity with churchy things. There remain large numbers who've been to church in childhood, or at least had contact. Significant numbers of people dropped out of Sunday School and many more had familiarity with worship as a result of going to a church primary school.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, I probably agree with you that for the entirely unchurched, a church service is not necessarily going to be the best starting point for the 'process'.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm saying that services which are for the purpose of evangelism are fundamentally a stupid idea.

---

Again an overgeneralised statement which is patently untrue in the experience of other Christians.

---

quote:

---

This is back to the level of anecdotal experience and whether my anecdote trumps yours.

---

quote:

---

My belief is that there are many ways for people to come to faith

---

quote:

---

and overtly evangelistic church services can be part of the process - and a major part for some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LydaRose:
And I knew a guy who was a hard drug dealer who was a pillar of his Bible church.

---

I hope he got his just deserts and was turned into a gargoyle!


[Edited out extra citations and code.]

[ 11. May 2004, 22:04: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by English Ploughboy. (# 4205) on :
 
No one has yet mentioned what an improvement dropping a few hundred tonnes of incendary bombs can make to the message of a Gothic Cathedral. I am thinking of course of Coventry. The modern cathedral is certainly no match for the gothic splendour of the old but the two sat side by side speak volumes about the Christian message, death and resurrection, winning through against disaster and adversity, and of course their wonderful work with peace and reconciliation. A wonderful worldwide work is being done from there and I do not think that anyone could visit without being profoundly moved,truly a place for our time. I am not however advocating this for our cathedrals in general.
 

---

Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
What is the earthly good of Christianity - to glorify God. Which is most effectively (but not exclusively) done through people coming to know and trust Jesus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Since when? Every single evangelistic meeting in every church I have ever been to in the last ten years, while it may have had a subsidiary aim of bringing the fringe people closer to God, is there for the express of purpose of getting converts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by English Ploughboy.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LydaRose:
.. And I knew a guy who was a hard drug dealer who was a pillar of his Bible church.

---

I hope he got his just deserts and was turned into a gargoyle!

---

Amen, brother!

[Edited out extra stuff.]

[ 11. May 2004, 22:08: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Since when? Every single evangelistic meeting in every church I have ever been to in the last ten years, while it may have had a subsidiary aim of bringing the fringe people closer to God, is there for the express of purpose of getting converts.

---

You failed to understand my last post. I don't know about your experience in your own church which seems to frustrate you, but most churches which have overtly evangelistic services recognise that they are reaching the fringe and the spiritually interested rather than those who have no experience of church. I tend to credit church leaders with a little more sophistication than you seem to. On the other hand, we could be talking about entirely different things. I am talking about 'seeker services' or whatever individual churches call them, rather than evangelistic rallies or missions, although in my experience these have their place as well.

---

I understand you perfectly. I just happen to think you're wrong.

Show me a church we're they've really thought about it that much and said so, and I might give you some ground.
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey. (# 2643) on :
 
I have nothing to add to the excellent comments made on this thread so far, simply to say that I myself have long felt God in the beautiful architecture of cathedrals. It is not wrong to give our best to God in art and architecture. For me, the CofE architectural tradition was a powerful pull for me in the direction of Christianity when I was not a Christian. However, it is impossible for this ever to be registered statistically.
 

---

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Judging by ....the people who hide in the shadows... 'insignificant and forgotten folk'....the people on their own...the silent and hurting...people who turn up and can barely even think, much less string a sentence together....the people who stand and listen, or sit, or kneel.
Judging by the very many people who turn up at a cathedral Just in time for the prayers-on-the-hour, or evensong.
Judging by that little lot, I think Cathedrals do a fantastic job.
Where else can I go and sit/stand/kneel through a superb corporate act of worship that centres on Jesus and not get talked at...interupted...helped or ministered to?
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
I recant. (I feel like Cranmer.)

If I were Rowan Williams I would not hand them over to the National Trust. Not immediately anyway.

Thanks especially Anselmina and ACOL-ite for explaining so much to me. I still have my reservations, but I understand much more. If a cathedral near you burns down soon, it won't have been me.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, Leprechaun, yesterday York Minster was a place I went to pray for my father-in-law, who is dying of cancer. So it has some uses, even for mothers of young children who don't worship there regularly.

Today I can look out of my living-room window and see its towers in the distance and remember the Christians who have lived in this place for almost two thousand years, especially the mediaeval ones who gave their life savings and their labour and (in some cases) their lives to make it. It's a witness to the glory of God in stone which is visible for miles. Every time I look at it I see the Church rooted in time and space, terrible as an army with banners (to paraphrase C.S. Lewis and the Song of Songs slightly). It makes its presence felt over a much wider area than the street evangelist who stands in St Helen's Square sometimes telling people about God: halfway up Stonegate and you're out of earshot. I think you take a far too narrow view of evangelism.

Jane R
 

---

Posted by ACOL-ite (# 4991) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I recant. (I feel like Cranmer.)

If I were Rowan Williams I would not hand them over to the National Trust. Not immediately anyway.

Thanks especially Anselmina and ACOL-ite for explaining so much to me. I still have my reservations, but I understand much more. If a cathedral near you burns down soon, it won't have been me.

---

You're very welcome, Lep. Thankyou for forcing me into writing about my feelings - it's helped me to a better understanding of my relationship with God.

It's been a difficult day, but your post has made it feel much better.
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey. (# 2643) on :
 
Now I feel I do have something to add to this thread although it is not of my own opinion.

I love cathedrals. They're one of the (few) things I miss about England having emigrated about three years ago. NZ hasn't much of an architectural heritage, and current architectural theory is based around the "elegant shed" concept. Not good.

But the point has been raised that cathedrals have great symbolic importance, they have been houses of prayer for centuries, they are the culmination of the worship of God through art. And they keep God in the marketplace, so to speak - every city in the UK has its cathedral which are as often as not some of the most important features of the skyline - such as St. Paul's in London.

Yet one might argue that this can be taken the other way...

The person who would flog them off to English Heritage could argue that their symbolic importance is very much a two-edged sword, reminding all and sundry of the 'Christian' excesses of the Dark Ages. I guess the only way to deal with that problem would be to demolish them all.

Houses of prayer: well, yes, although one could argue instead that this is of no particular importance as we can and should pray anywhere and everywhere. Or, perhaps argue that this is the point where the tradition of the church stops guiding and starts chaining.

Finally, a big empty cathedral, seen in the public eye as a magnet for tourists and scarcely as a place of worship illustrates nothing more than the decline of Christianity.

I think those who would decommission cathedrals look to a church free of the temporal shackles of rude brick and mortar, so that the church is better able to concentrate on its mission without having to worry too much about replacing the West Window.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I think it is the very fact that cathedrals are seen as a magnet for tourists that makes it seen as okay for some people (who would not normally feel comfortable going into a church in their own community) to visit. Rather like Princess Diana's death (another big picture) gave 'permission' for ordinary people to grieve.

If you come from a community where it is seen as soft to have spiritual needs, you can hide behind the tourism excuse to visit a cathedral and privately gain a lot of benefit from it.

I see it as no coincidence that, whereas churches have an increasingly aging membership, those visiting cathedrals are of very mixed ages, including those largely missing from the churches.
 

---

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir George Grey.:
Now I feel I do have something to add to this thread although it is not of my own opinion.

I love cathedrals. They're one of the (few) things I miss about England having emigrated about three years ago. <snip>

But the point has been raised that cathedrals have great symbolic importance, they have been houses of prayer for centuries, they are the culmination of the worship of God through art. And they keep God in the marketplace, so to speak - every city in the UK has its cathedral which are as often as not some of the most important features of the skyline - such as St. Paul's in London.

Yet one might argue that this can be taken the other way...<snip some more>

Finally, a big empty cathedral, seen in the public eye as a magnet for tourists and scarcely as a place of worship illustrates nothing more than the decline of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
With that being said, a cathedral with a beautiful facility and central location which is active in the social life of its community (weekday opening hours and services, hosting concerts/lectures, interfaith services, various good works) is, in my opinion, very much a force in the community for witnessing to the Good News of God's love for us.

---

That is very true of the cathedral in my town, which is an exceedingly active center of this religious community. It is in constant use, and is frequently filled to capacity.

Its role as a magnet for tourism is somewhat in conflict with this, but the two roles coexist peacefully most of the time.

In times of tragedy, such as 9/11, places such as this are where many people turn for prayer and reassurance. During that time our cathedral was completely filled every day, mostly with strangers, for services just because it was a well known local house of worship.

Although it is in America, and is only 100 years old, it is very similar to many European cathedrals I have visited, in both feel and function.

A cathedral has a very deep emotional effect on people, being so often the scene of many significant life events. I have seen people come back to ours after some years away and just sit and weep with emotion. I have done this myself.
 

---

Posted by The Black Labrador (# 3098) on :
 
While Leprechaun makes some reasonable points about use of resources in the C of E I think cathedrals are a very bad example to use in this context, for the following reasons:

i. As others have noted, some cathedrals have seen noticeable increases in attendance in recent years - I don't know if these are transfers from other churches or whether this will be sustained - but the pattern is more positive in cathedrals than in many other churches (including some evangelical churches)

ii. Cathedrals attract far more visitors than average parish churches, they are probably more likely to have visitors at their services, they host many civic services and events which attract non Christians, etc. The cathedrals I've visited all advertise courses, lectures, study groups, etc. - so there are plenty of opportunities for discipleship - I don't know how many people take advantage of them.

iii. I'm no expert on cathedral finances, but I would expect them to be in a better position to maintain themselves than many churches - many charge for admission, and they would presumably have greater access to grants from english heritage/the lottery/charitable trusts.

I would close large numbers of parish churches before closing a single cathedral.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
As Black Labrador says, cathedrals are very special and have a special ministry at which they appear to be very successful. In addition, there are many parish churches, particularly in areas where there are no cathedrals, which run on a small-scale cathedral style, for example, Minsters, Abbey churches. They too have daily services, good choral foundation and act as a central resource for area festivals (which cannot be held in smaller churches due to size, lack of parking, etc). I would argue that in more far-flung areas these churches act as 'cathedrals' for their deaneries and thus also do invaluable work. I go to a similar one myself - our nearest cathedral is about 45 miles away. Because of this, many people do seem to use our church as they would a cathedral: to light a candle, sit and pray, listen to the music, be anonymous for a while, because it is the closest thing they have got.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
No one yet has mentioned the place that the choir schools play in the expenses of a cathedral.

If The Choir by Trollope is true-to-life, it is a considerable expense indeed. The main conflict in the story was between a dean who wanted to close the choir and its school in order to redirect these expenses to the upkeep of the building, vs. various supporters of the choir who were aghast and grieved by this proposal. In this case, the choir survived, and the author made an eloquent case that the choir ought to survive and the dean was mistaken in his priorities. As long as children sing daily to the glory of God in our cathedrals, they are alive. If you want to see a dead cathedral, try France.

Over on the American side of the pond, I find it very impressive how much better known and honored the English cathedral and collegiate choirs are now than they were thirty or forty years ago when I was a student. Then, the Schwann catalog listed only a relative handful of recordings from them, and these were mostly from King's and St. John's Colleges. There were one or two from Westminster Abbey, a couple from St. Paul's, a couple from Salisbury. Anyone wanting to go beyond that would have quite a sleuthing job on his hands.

Although the classical record market as a whole is in increasingly dire straits, one finds today a relative cornucopia of recordings-- entire series, in fact-- from various English cathedral choirs. Their musical standards have palpably increased in most cases. They are now appreciated as groups of the highest caliber in the musical world at large-- belatedly IMHO, but it is a very gratifying thing to behold. Their singing serves as a model and an inspiration to many choirs in this country, and presumably all over the world.

Now back to the expenses of cathedrals, about which so much objection has been expressed in this thread: insofar as the choirs figure prominently as an expense, I must point out that this expense actually goes largely to the education of children: the choristers' remuneration is applied directly or indirectly to their schooling. Hence it is a significant charitable outlay and an investment in people. Without the opportunity to sing in the cathedral choir, these boys and girls would in many cases not be able to enjoy such a good education.

The lay clerks and organists, too, aren't usually among our wealthier citizens. They may be university students trying to pay the rent. They may be schoolteachers. Or they may hold their positions largely as labors of love-- living where they are living solely in order to sing in the choir, and trying to make ends meet from some part-time job or other that doesn't happen to conflict with their service and rehearsal schedules.

I can understand questioning whether the church is spending too much money on bricks and mortar. I can even understand questioning whether she is spending too much money on music per se (hypothetically: I doubt that any church spends too much these days in practice). But I find it very hard to see any goodwill in questioning money spent on the education of a child. Please let us bear in mind that the cathedrals are in this line of work significantly.
Children are among the poor we make so much noise about wanting to help as an alternative to "spending money on cathedrals." They are also among the souls that we wish to evangelize. The issue raised is, to that extent, purely a false dichotomy.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It is also worth remembering, lest anyone think that cathedrals are only interested in an elite of independent education, that they work extensively with schools in the state sector as well, holding festivals, exhibitions, study days, for any church or secular schools which wish to come along.
(Added to which, any child with a good, clear voice can be offered a choral scholarship - and many places are heavily subsidised so that children are not barred because of lack of parental income).

I have many happy memories of attending Exeter Cathedral as a child, for a schools' festival, where art, music, history and faith all combined to make a very special day out. I'm glad to see that these events are still counted as very important.
 

---

Posted by ange_joyeux (# 6719) on :
 
To me, cathedrals are glorious channels through which we touch the past, similar to the pyramids of Egypt. I love the beauty and cultural significance of the stained-glass panes in many cathedrals and I think of them as beautiful historical art pieces that are hung in a church instead of an art museum.

For me, the true immense, powerful and lasting testaments to the glory of God, are the Cascade Mountains that rise in majesty in my front window and the magnificent and vast Pacific Ocean sparkling in my back window.

Driving thru British Columbia and Alberta several years ago, I was blown away by the grandeur of the Canadian Rockies as a stunning panorama greeted us at every turn of the highway. Miles and miles of majestic beauty that I believe that are the true monuments of the work of our Lord; God’s own temples.

Ange
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0