Thread: Eccles: What's the matter with rural churches? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001139
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
It seems that, on numerous threads here on the Ship, people have said things to the effect of 'well, that works well in the city but wouldn't work in a rural parish'. (I'm thinking of numerous posts on threads like these).

This sometimes seems to apply to ideas that I wouldn't regard as terribly radical, like having Communion every Sunday in every benefice (even if not in every church or not as the main service).

I love rural Mediaeval churches, and to bicycle about looking at them with a copy of Pevsner in my rucksack. Some rural incumbents and churchwardens in the area probably know me as the annoying person who is always knocking on doors asking for the key to the church.

Yet, for all their splendor and historical value, too many rural Anglican churches seem to be in what I'd call their Ulysses phase ('How dull it is to pause, to make an end,/ To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!'), by which I mean they seem not to be used for very much of anything, let alone their original purpose. Even reflecting that they are almost invariably parts of team ministries, the number of services in each church tends to be very low. As the Book of Common Prayer has faded from the scene, the sort of rural MOTR liturgy that seemed to have previously predominated (either the English Hymnal with modified Dearmerite use with or else Hymns A&M with Matins and Communion alternating) seems to have gone with it. Rural MOTR Anglicanism now seems to stand further apart from urban MOTR Anglicanism than it ever has in the past.

A fairly trivial example would be this: I have never been to an urban church (other than those strongly identifying as Evangelical) that did not have the New English Hymnal in the pews. I don't think I've ever been to a rural church that did.

But what really bothers me is the sense that these churches are no longer playing the sort of role in their communities for which they were built.

I don't know if it's just that the inevitable effects of a few centuries of urbanization have left rural communities behind, or if there is something more specific going on in rural churches.

[ 04. March 2014, 09:29: Message edited by: seasick ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that's generally true, and the congregations in rural churches are ageing.

That said, I can think of one or two rural churches around here which are within easy reach of surrounding towns where their congregations are swelled by refugees from happy-clappy worship or the demise of traditional church choirs.

I can think of two where the standard of choral music is very high indeed, and all because of refugees from nearby towns.

Whether that is sustainable in the longer term is a moot point. The further out into the sticks you get the more difficult it becomes.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
A lot of the problem is that the churches are playing the roles in their communities that they were built for. Or rather, the communities are very clearly defined and the church has to play a role in 'their community'.

In my experience of rural parishes, it makes no difference whether there's a communion in the benefice each week. People are simply not interested in what happens in the next village because they care about their church. People understand the resource constraints that mean they can't have their own vicar, but don't feel attachment to the benefice as a unit.

What people want is the best church possible given the resources in their village. And what they get is actually quite impressive given the resources.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:

Yet, for all their splendor and historical value, too many rural Anglican churches seem to be in what I'd call their Ulysses phase ('How dull it is to pause, to make an end,/ To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!'), by which I mean they seem not to be used for very much of anything, let alone their original purpose. Even reflecting that they are almost invariably parts of team ministries, the number of services in each church tends to be very low.
We've not gone as far down this road in the UK as in France. Most village churches (RC of course) don't seem to have any kind of formal worship, let alone the Mass, for weeks on end. A friend of mine who lives in France (ex-Anglican Quaker, who would attend Catholic mass weekly if he could) reported that in his village there wasn't even a mass on the feast of the patron saint. Small towns, which in England would have at least three services (including at least one eucharist) every Sunday, may share a priest with the next dozen communities and get one mass a month.

Secularisation, rural depopulation, shortage of priests, ease of travel to the nearest centre, are all likely factors. At least in the C of E we have a tradition of corporate offices and lay-led services, enabling some sort of weekly worship in every church. There is no reason why a priest should run himself* ragged tearing round half a dozen churches every Sunday. Let it be known where the mass is being celebrated each week, for the keenies, and let there be some service in every church.

But it's easy for me to theorise, never having worked (or wished to) in a rural context. Some people here will have that experience.

*sorry, should have said 'or herself': I was thinking of the French situation.

[ 11. September 2013, 14:45: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I guess this pattern, in a part of Norfolk I know well, is fairly typical. But the Parish Priest retires next month, so who knows what will happen then?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
(Missed edit window).

Leslie Francis' book "Church Watch" makes some trenchant points - and it's nearly 20 years old!
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I guess this pattern, in a part of Norfolk I know well, is fairly typical. But the Parish Priest retires next month, so who knows what will happen then?
That seems insanely complicated. I wonder how anyone ever remembers when they're meant to be going to church.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Rural churches are often grouped into five or six, forming a team ministry or mission community. This group will often only have one stipendiary priest, plus several other staff (NSMs, readers), trying to provide in a fair way for all the churches. Instead of putting one person in each place, they all go on a merry-go-round so you get a different preacher / celebrant in each place each week. It doesn't sound terribly green (think of all the petrol!) and leads to much confusion - the ministers don't know the people so well, and the people don't know the ministers well. If you never see the priest, everyone assumes he must be in one of the other parishes, but of course he may well be up in the loft with his train set [Biased]

An inordinate amount of time may be spent in drawing up a very complicated rota - and sometimes things go wrong, even the staff get confused and nobody turns up to take a service!

It all sounds very stressful to me, but what else can they do, when too few people are given too many churches to look after?
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Encourage lay ministry/ NSMs? If there was one person designated the pastor for each village, and s/he was given delegated responsibility for organising the worship, there would be a sense of continuity.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Grouping parishes together is already happening in cities. And it will continue as a large proportion of clergy retire in the next ten years.

In my deanery the grouping is six churches to 5 priests. In the plan, that will reduce to 4, then 3, eventually 2 - over a 15 year period. So anyone who moves on doesn't get replaced.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Rural churches are often grouped into five or six, forming a team ministry or mission community. This group will often only have one stipendiary priest, plus several other staff (NSMs, readers), trying to provide in a fair way for all the churches. Instead of putting one person in each place, they all go on a merry-go-round so you get a different preacher / celebrant in each place each week.
In the example given (Scarrowbeck), it looks like difficult decisions have been avoided for too long. Both Alby and Thwaite churches seem to be in the middle of nowhere (and arguably worse than Hanworth, which has already closed). Ingworth is scarcely any better. Closing those three would allow resources to be focussed on the remaining three churches, of which Calthorpe and Erpingham effectively serve the same settlement. Given that Erpingham is the only church to have bells, it should permanently have a morning service, and Calthorpe should permanently have only an evening service. On that basis it should be possible to construct a pattern of services that is consistent from week to week. (And, yes, I know, that sort of proposal is how to achieve World War III in the Easter Vestry. Perhaps the Archdeacon should take a lead.)
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
While the clergy shortage situation in the US is probably not as dire as in the UK, in many small towns or rural areas, creative solutions have to be found.
For example, my son and his wife recently moved to a (very) small town in central Kentucky, about 20 miles on good roads from a larger (though not large) urban center. This village has Methodist, Baptist, RC and Presbyterian churches (that's roughly in descending order of size).
The Presby church would safely be called 'struggling.' When I last visited, the Sunday body count was 10, including the pastor and organist. (The room would have seated perhaps 100.) As a new face, I was practically mobbed by the congo, hoping I was new to the community. The organist was shared with the Methodists, and the pastor? She was the widow of the last ordained minister, whom the congo petitioned the synod to install as pastor (with theological training but without ordination). (I may have some of this terminology wrong.) She preached a perceptive, excellent sermon on the gospel of the day, though she had difficulty handling the large lectern bible, and had difficulty with the text of the communion rite. You see, she is 85 years old and nearly blind.
Yet that church carries on.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I guess this pattern, in a part of Norfolk I know well, is fairly typical. But the Parish Priest retires next month, so who knows what will happen then?
That seems insanely complicated. I wonder how anyone ever remembers when they're meant to be going to church.
Because the Parish Magazine (which has the rota on the front cover) is hand-delivered to every house in the villages - it acts as a Village Paper not just a Church one.

And the notices outside the churches are kept up to date. It does work!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I guess this pattern, in a part of Norfolk I know well, is fairly typical. But the Parish Priest retires next month, so who knows what will happen then?
That seems insanely complicated. I wonder how anyone ever remembers when they're meant to be going to church.
Because the Parish Magazine (which has the rota on the front cover) is hand-delivered to every house in the villages - it acts as a Village Paper not just a Church one.

And the notices outside the churches are kept up to date. It does work!
 
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
In my part of the world many of the rural churches are charismatic evangelical. Some are very conservative and congregational. The more MotR and Angolo Catholic Churches are in the centre of town. Not really what you would expect.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
Much has been said about the difficulties of team ministry. I'm sure it's all true.

But there seems to be something distinctive about rural team ministries. I think it's safe to say that few if any of them resemble this thriving group of parishes in London, with an impressive range of services (there's even 'Mess Church' in there, which should make Karl happy). Now, in fairness, this team has certain advantages: with five priests (one NSM and one serving his title, a lay minister, and three pastoral assistants, it's not exactly experiencing the level of under-staffing that is all too common in rural areas; furthermore, I strongly suspect that the team rector can find other priests in and outside his local deanery who are happy to cover services from time to time.

However, in other respects, notably the combination of stipendary and self-supporting ministers, along with a strong commitment to lay ministry and real work within the community, it seems like a model team parish.

I recognize, though, that there are very significant cultural differences between Camden Town and rural England (I've lived in both, btw), and I'm sure that these are reflected in the local churches. I would think that rural parishes will be less densely populated, will probably be less multicultural, and may well be older on average. In popular imagination, that should make them 'easier' for Anglican ministers (isn't that the schtick in 'Rev'?), but it doesn't seem to do so.

I think there are also cultural differences within ministry. I may be wrong about this, but in my experience, it's actually a rare priest who has extensive experience in both rural and urban ministry. It definitely seems that an urban curacy sets one up for a lifetime of urban ministry (and vice versa?)
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Encourage lay ministry/ NSMs? If there was one person designated the pastor for each village, and s/he was given delegated responsibility for organising the worship, there would be a sense of continuity.
Exactly the system operated by the Baptist Churches in the region I used to be in. Know what? Most churches reported stable, if not growing, congregations as a result.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Grouping parishes together is already happening in cities. And it will continue as a large proportion of clergy retire in the next ten years.

In my deanery the grouping is six churches to 5 priests. In the plan, that will reduce to 4, then 3, eventually 2 - over a 15 year period. So anyone who moves on doesn't get replaced.
You are very fortunate indeed. In most rural areas it's already 1:3, 1:6 no uncommon and I know of a 1 priest who "serves" 8
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
In the example given (Scarrowbeck), it looks like difficult decisions have been avoided for too long. Both Alby and Thwaite churches seem to be in the middle of nowhere (and arguably worse than Hanworth, which has already closed). Ingworth is scarcely any better. Closing those three would allow resources to be focussed on the remaining three churches, of which Calthorpe and Erpingham effectively serve the same settlement. Given that Erpingham is the only church to have bells, it should permanently have a morning service, and Calthorpe should permanently have only an evening service. On that basis it should be possible to construct a pattern of services that is consistent from week to week. (And, yes, I know, that sort of proposal is how to achieve World War III in the Easter Vestry. Perhaps the Archdeacon should take a lead.)
The problem - as ever - is that people have strong attachments to buildings; if you close any folk will not easily relocate (even though it may be only 5 minutes by car!)

Each church - although sharing the one Vicar - also has its "nuances" when it comes to worship.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
The situation outlined by Chorister sounds a bit like what happens in Methodism: big circuits, with 'local' preachers criss-crossing wide areas to lead the majority of church services. The clergy will each have 3+ churches to look after. The rota is referred to as 'the plan', and should be available at every local church to look at or take away. There's not much continuity in the Methodist pulpit, although sermon quality is relatively consistent.

Some churches will announce the upcoming preachers on a noticeboard outside, but this is rare IME. It's not essential, because every functioning church will be open every Sunday morning for worship, regardless of who's preaching. Mind you, some people choose to absent themselves if they know that so-and-so is due to preach.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You are very fortunate indeed. In most rural areas it's already 1:3, 1:6 no uncommon and I know of a 1 priest who "serves" 8
Even 25 years ago my grandfather served 12 parishes. It was amazing the speed with which he could finish a full communion service with four hymns and sermon (I believe he did 3 services each Sunday morning, though I'm unsure of the format).
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Encourage lay ministry/ NSMs? If there was one person designated the pastor for each village, and s/he was given delegated responsibility for organising the worship, there would be a sense of continuity.
Exactly the system operated by the Baptist Churches in the region I used to be in. Know what? Most churches reported stable, if not growing, congregations as a result.
Not surprised at all. It'd make a lot of sense. Most parishes/ congregations have, I suspect, at least one person who could conduct services with an acceptable standard of reverence and decorum and provide, as Angloid says, the continuity, as part of a wider team of clergy and committed lay ministers.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
AIUI, this is more or less what is in mind for the proposed Ministry Areas in the Church in Wales, great swathes of which are rural parishes like the ones being talked about.

If it's entered into positively, I think it can work well. The problem is, in many places, it's being sold as a necessary measure to combat lack of money and vocations, and has an air of desperation about it.

Every MA will look different from the one next door and none can be planned in advance without knowing exactly where every cleric will be in five years' time. The result is that instead of being enthused, most people feel worried and unsettled.
 
Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :
 
Though I'm not CinW, I do occasionally substitute for the organist at my local parish church, and the rumblings I hear of re-organisation of rural parishes have left many in the pews very apprehensive about the future. Many village churches are still just about managing to have weekly services and some midweek activities or sporadic gatherings, but the drastic reduction in personnel that is currently on the cards will make life very difficult for some of the smaller congregations. The Methodists in this area have already taken the painful decision to close a number of chapels, and many congregations in other traditions (including my own - Baptist) are valiantly trying to maintain a local witness with dwindling bands of ageing members rattling around in barn-like 19th-century pitch-pine preaching boxes.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
AIUI, this is more or less what is in mind for the proposed Ministry Areas in the Church in Wales, great swathes of which are rural parishes like the ones being talked about.
The thing I don't get is that they're describing these Ministry Areas as a change, when it seems to be what's going on already. For example, the Rectorial Benefice of Cowbridge has eleven churches (although one of these only gets a handful of services a year, because it hasn't had a village since about 1348). So what's the point of giving this sort of thing a new name?

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
If it's entered into positively, I think it can work well. The problem is, in many places, it's being sold as a necessary measure to combat lack of money and vocations, and has an air of desperation about it.

Every MA will look different from the one next door and none can be planned in advance without knowing exactly where every cleric will be in five years' time. The result is that instead of being enthused, most people feel worried and unsettled.
And they seem to be going about it in such a way as to minimize positivity. On the agendum before the Governing Body was this remarkably crassly-worded point:

"G. remind all members of Governing Body to accept their responsibility to engage with, communicate and support this process."

I don't know what the result of the vote was (I imagine it passed), but I expect there were a number of "no" votes just because members wished to point out to the people who draft this stuff that they are their diocese's representatives on the Governing Body, not provincial apparatchiks in their dioceses.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[QUOTE] Not surprised at all. It'd make a lot of sense. Most parishes/ congregations have, I suspect, at least one person who could conduct services with an acceptable standard of reverence and decorum and provide, as Angloid says, the continuity, as part of a wider team of clergy and committed lay ministers.
Those in "pastoral leadership" were a mixture of full time and part time ordained and trained lay people (we have reader equivalents). We also had "house for duty" and in that capacity had 2 retired Anglican priests in pastoral leadership amongst some 100 churches or so.

There were/are one or two groups of churches but each church within the group had dedicated (in every sense of the word) leadership.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
AIUI, this is more or less what is in mind for the proposed Ministry Areas in the Church in Wales, great swathes of which are rural parishes like the ones being talked about.
The thing I don't get is that they're describing these Ministry Areas as a change, when it seems to be what's going on already. For example, the Rectorial Benefice of Cowbridge has eleven churches (although one of these only gets a handful of services a year, because it hasn't had a village since about 1348). So what's the point of giving this sort of thing a new name?

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
If it's entered into positively, I think it can work well. The problem is, in many places, it's being sold as a necessary measure to combat lack of money and vocations, and has an air of desperation about it.

Every MA will look different from the one next door and none can be planned in advance without knowing exactly where every cleric will be in five years' time. The result is that instead of being enthused, most people feel worried and unsettled.
And they seem to be going about it in such a way as to minimize positivity. On the agendum before the Governing Body was this remarkably crassly-worded point:

"G. remind all members of Governing Body to accept their responsibility to engage with, communicate and support this process."

I don't know what the result of the vote was (I imagine it passed), but I expect there were a number of "no" votes just because members wished to point out to the people who draft this stuff that they are their diocese's representatives on the Governing Body, not provincial apparatchiks in their dioceses.
Despite all the recent changes in the Parish, I already see our move towards Ministry Areas, (though having the Parish Priest as Area Dean means that we have been effectively running as a MA across our severely clergy lacking Deanery... it's all rather sad...)

The boots on the ground are not keen with the whole plan (but it keeps getting pushed) but then I can't think of any of the meetings which happened in the Diocese at which the Harris report was mentioned it (in whole or in part) being received positively, as if all the consultation was curtain dressing and the decision had been made long before it was even sent as 'draft' to us little ones at the coal faces who will have to work on the implementation and stability.

As for today's (I guess it is actually yesterday's (11th) now) agreement to 8G we'll just have to wait for the report to come out (or pick up the phone and talk to people and find out before then!)

The issue that is most difficult is the mixed benefices, where it is urban and rural mixed, especially when the rural doesn't like he urban and sees it as eroding the rural identity etc.

Baptist Trainfan is right on the Francis 'Church Watch' book, it does continue to be a valuable resource, and it is sad that so many of the lessons that it prescribes have not been learnt even after all these years... anyone who hasn't read it should do so!
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
(though having the Parish Priest as Area Dean means that we have been effectively running as a MA across our severely clergy lacking Deanery... it's all rather sad...)
I'm amazed that anyone ever agrees to be Area Dean: they get paid very little extra for an enormous quantity of extra work. They can't all want to be Archdeacon.

Returning to our MAs, I'd rather it were all contingent on actually uniting properly with the other Covenanted Churches. Then they could actually do something useful, rather than being an exercise in renaming the deckchairs.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
(though having the Parish Priest as Area Dean means that we have been effectively running as a MA across our severely clergy lacking Deanery... it's all rather sad...)
I'm amazed that anyone ever agrees to be Area Dean: they get paid very little extra for an enormous quantity of extra work. They can't all want to be Archdeacon.

Returning to our MAs, I'd rather it were all contingent on actually uniting properly with the other Covenanted Churches. Then they could actually do something useful, rather than being an exercise in renaming the deckchairs.
I know that 'Empire Building' runs through the minds of the other CinW Church near by...

The Covenanting Churches ideas do not go far enough at the moment ... (I confess that I would prefer it if the others were to be incorporated into the CinW instead of maintaining their own denominations - but then I am unashamedly an Anglican) ... and does require a serious proposal that the covenanting Churches share a building and forgo the rest, utilising the money raised from sale to set up a proper mission and social action fund with which to fund outreach.

This of course will never take hold, (especially considering that in most cases it will be the CinW building kept and the others sold off) as that pesky problem of attachment to a building raises its head again!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
S.Bacchus, even allowing for unbelievers in one, and followers of other religions in the other, seven villages in the remoter parts of Norfolk has probably got about a population comparable with about three streets in St Pancras.

Does that answer your OP?
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
S.Bacchus, even allowing for unbelievers in one, and followers of other religions in the other, seven villages in the remoter parts of Norfolk has probably got about a population comparable with about three streets in St Pancras.

Does that answer your OP?
It's doubtless a contributory factor. One could develop a system that would allow what I would consider the normal range of Anglican Sunday services (Mattins, Communion, and Evensong) to be said at all seven churches in a manner requiring no more than one stipendary vicar and one NSM (and several lay ministers). The rota posted above doesn't seem too deficient in that regard, although it is undeniably very complicated.

None of that explains why, on the Sunday before Christmas, when I was staying in a remote cottage some distance outside of a small village in Eastern England, neither of the two nearest benefices saw fit to have a service of Holy Communion at any time on Sunday in any of the churches in their respective benefices, although their failure to do so was strictly illegal.* One of these benefices was a member of the Evangelical Alliance (which, I have to say, surprised me in such a rural setting — I would have been equally surprised to see an advanced Anglo-Catholic parish), but the other seemed very MOTR. Every service it offered that day was some variation on a Christingle or crib service. So, not only was there no Eucharistic service (despite the canonical requirement that there be one), but there was also no service aimed at adults, except perhaps those with very small children in tow. That doesn't suggest a lack of resources, it suggest a lack of caring.

(And, yes, they were having 'Midnight Communion with Carols' on Christmas Eve, and no, that does not absolve them for the requirement to have Communion on the Sunday before the Eve as well).

I'm not claiming that all rural benefices are so negligent (I know for a happy fact that many or most are not), but I will say that I can't imagine that sort of thing happening in any urban MOTR Anglican parish church. In fact, the vicar of the (moderately Anglo-Catholic) parish in nearest large town was amazed that such things happen in anywhere in the Church of England. He grew up in the urban midlands and served his curacies in London and one of the northern cities. I guess he wasn't very familiar with rural Anglicanism.


**********************
*Relevant Canons: B14.1 and (with respect to the special circumstances of a united benefice B14A.1).
 
Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :
 
I've worshiped in urban MOTR parishes all my life. I'm now in my sixties.

None of the churches have had all three services.

Where I grew up the church I attended with my parents had only one service and that was Holy Communion. The church whose youth fellowship I was a member of had an evening service - evensong on three Sundays and Holy Communion on the other.

The last church I attended only had one service, alternating between Morning Prayer and Holy Communion.

Where I am now we also only have one service. We have just increased our number of Holy Communion services to three. (Except for this month when the Vicar is on holiday and a there isn't a priest available, so as the Reader I will be taking Morning Prayer.

So we don't seem to be any different from rural MOTR churches.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Are you sure none of these churches had a regular communion service at 8.00 every Sunday? That's the standard default for MOTR and I would guess the majority of evangelical parishes. If there is no eucharist anywhere in a parish on a Sunday they are in breach of Canon Law.
 
Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :
 
We don't have an 8 o'clock service and neither did my previous church.

So as far as I can see a lot of Bishops have turned a lot of blind eyes.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
On the Sunday before Christmas, when I was staying in a remote cottage some distance outside of a small village in Eastern England, neither of the two nearest benefices saw fit to have a service of Holy Communion at any time on Sunday in any of the churches in their respective benefices... Every service it offered that day was some variation on a Christingle or crib service. So, not only was there no Eucharistic service (despite the canonical requirement that there be one), but there was also no service aimed at adults, except perhaps those with very small children in tow. That doesn't suggest a lack of resources, it suggest a lack of caring.

(And, yes, they were having 'Midnight Communion with Carols' on Christmas Eve, and no, that does not absolve them for the requirement to have Communion on the Sunday before the Eve as well).
Or does this reflect the fact that they "knew their market" (yes, I know it's a horrible phrase)and adapted what was on offer to what they knew most people would attend.

By the way, it would be interested to know what day of the week Christmas fell on that year; we certainly notice different attendance patterns around Christmas when it falls on a Saturday or a Monday. (But, then, we have no Canon Law to follow!)
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Are you sure none of these churches had a regular communion service at 8.00 every Sunday? That's the standard default for MOTR and I would guess the majority of evangelical parishes. If there is no eucharist anywhere in a parish on a Sunday they are in breach of Canon Law.
Yes, I am reasonably sure. On that Sunday there were no Eucharistic services mentioned. Certainly none was advertized in such a way that someone new to the village might be able to find it. Apparently this is their normal schedule:

Church A: Parish Eucharist on 1st and 2nd Sundays, All-Age Worship (specifically listed as 'without communion) on 3rd Sundays. Additional parish Eucharist on the 4th Sunday of every third month.

Church B: Holy Communion on first and third sundays, 'morning worship' on 2nd Sundays. Additional Holy Communion on the 4th Sunday of every third month.

Church C: No services listed at all, but it is implied that there (from the other church) that they have a parish communion there on the 4th Sunday of every third month.

So, it does look like they normally do stick to the letter of the canons with regards to a minimum celebration of Holy Communion (although it's not clear what happens on 5th Sundays).

BUT: There is no mention that the Office is prayed regularly in any of the churches (as required by canon) and there is no mention of ANY regular services on Sunday evening or on any week day.

This is a benefice with a full time vicar for three churches. My guess would be that the vicar celebrates or officiates at two or maybe three services, which is a fair number for a Sunday Morning but not for an entire week!

In contrast, in the nearest town of any note there are several churches in the town centre (far more than any reasonable person would include today!). Churchmanship, one is straight BCP lowish and liberal, the official 'Town Church' is much the same but uses CW some the time and has a choral tradition, one is Prayer Book Catholic, one is Modern Catholic, one is so liberal it's basically unitarian, one is conservative evangelical, and one is charismatic evangelical.

Not all of these churches have a full time vicar. But ALL of them have a Sunday evening service (choral evensong, chanted evensong, said evening prayer, 'contemplative service', or simply 'Sundays at 6' for the evangelicals, and all but the two Evangelical ones have weekday services as well (both the Prayer Book Catholic and Modern Catholic places manage to have the Eucharist and daily office every day).

There's a difference there that can't be explained entirely by a difference in resources.

ETA: Baptist Trainfan, Christmas was on a Tuesday last year.

[ 12. September 2013, 13:16: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
BUT: There is no mention that the Office is prayed regularly in any of the churches (as required by canon)
BCP requires a CofE Priest to say the Offices daily. It is only preferable, but evidently not required, that it is done in Church after the tolling of the bell...
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
Ignore the post above, I lied!

Too many Priests seem to run this sentence:

quote:
And all Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly, not being let by sickness, or some other urgent cause.
into the next one and justify to themselves that the privately in the sentence above applies in all circumstances where in fact the sentence does read;

quote:
And the Curate that ministereth in every Parish-Church or Chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the Parish-Church or Chapel where he ministereth, and shall cause a Bell to be tolled thereunto a convenient time before he begin, that the people may come to hear God's Word, and to pray with him.
But then most Parish priests would quibble over their status as 'curates' and so deem that the rules do not apply to them on a semantic technicality of sorts.

Mea culpa for my error on the wording, I've been hanging around low people who don't care enough for the offices or the liturgy, for too long!

[ 12. September 2013, 13:51: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
Please forgive the third post in a row... my brain is not working today...

The confusion of course comes from the way in which the word Curate is now used in the modern Anglican Church, which has taken on the more Roman Catholic meaning of subordinate priest rather than the BCP meaning of Parish Priest...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Or does this reflect the fact that they "knew their market" (yes, I know it's a horrible phrase)and adapted what was on offer to what they knew most people would attend.
It is a horrible phrase, BTF. No disrespect to you and your tradition, which if I understand correctly does not regard public liturgy as the primary context of spirituality.

But in the Anglican tradition it has always been understood that the liturgy of the church should be offered irrespective of numbers or popularity. As a minimum this has meant the daily office (Communion, according to the BCP, should not be celebrated without communicants, and hence during the 17th and 18th century was held infrequently.) It should be a priest's duty - and their joy - to offer the liturgy of the Church on the Lord's Day, whatever other non-liturgical events might be on offer. And these days there is no excuse for not advertising Holy Communion and expecting some communicants at least.

It is ironic that 50 or more years ago someone brought up in a MOTR church would feel at sea in most anglo-catholic churches, but recognise the liturgy and feel at home in most evangelical ones. Now that the latter have largely deserted traditional liturgy, and the former have simplified theirs, someone brought up on weekly Parish Communion would be much more at home in a Sung Mass and incense sort of place than an unsacramental Praise Band one.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
It's very sad. (ie no eucharist. I'd be amazed to get morning prayer if there's a eucharist and in North London, the churches I knew didn't do evensong.)
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
What's the matter with rural churches?

Depends on whether you are talking about small rural towns or villages.

Villages - small ones - have problems for a variety of reasons which can include:
If rural churches don't have a decent hymn book more than likely it has nothing to do with the preferences of the congregation - they are more likely to have to use Mission Praise through the whim of a departed incumbent and are stuck with it because they can't afford to replace with something better - possibly even the old books that were heedlessly dumped.

If they have a confused or confusing mish-mash of liturgical styles that is likely to be down to being without a single person in charge of organising the liturgy.

Of course, there is always the exception: one rural parish near me was almost at the point of not being able to even co-opt a quorum for its PCC. What made the difference was (a) the announcement that their benefice was to have its period of suspension extended (again) that they only heard about when it was published in the diocesan newsletter; (b) an attempt to use its income to subsidise the much larger parish with whom it is forced to share an incumbent; (c) the appointment of the one candidate to the 2 parishes that the really couldn't stand; (d) the decision to exclude all but 1 of their churchwardens from the I&D service.

And our ArchDeacon is one of those who has been heard speaking at length about his "concern" for rural ministry... [Killing me]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Friends of mine who are solidly ango-catholic live in a village whose church had a catholic tradition, 20 years ago when they moved there, including daily mass and offices.

The NSM, aged 80, has decided to give up and two readers have moved away.

They are now advertising for a new parish priest. The new job requires him or her to minister to 7 country churches, each with average Sunday attendance in the low thirties.

The remuneration is a rectory and 1/6th stipend.

That is enough to explain the dire state of some rural churches.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If rural churches don't have a decent hymn book more than likely it has nothing to do with the preferences of the congregation - they are more likely to have to use Mission Praise through the whim of a departed incumbent and are stuck with it because they can't afford to replace with something better - possibly even the old books that were heedlessly dumped.
Mission Praise isn't that bad. About a quarter of it is usable (which is probably why its hymn numbers now run to four digits). Arguably it has a greater number of decent hymns than AMR. It would be far worse if they'd been lumbered with Songs of Fellowship.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


If they have a confused or confusing mish-mash of liturgical styles that is likely to be down to being without a single person in charge of organising the liturgy.
Not just a rural problem, sadly. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If rural churches don't have a decent hymn book more than likely it has nothing to do with the preferences of the congregation - they are more likely to have to use Mission Praise through the whim of a departed incumbent and are stuck with it because they can't afford to replace with something better - possibly even the old books that were heedlessly dumped.
Mission Praise isn't that bad. About a quarter of it is usable (which is probably why its hymn numbers now run to four digits). Arguably it has a greater number of decent hymns than AMR. It would be far worse if they'd been lumbered with Songs of Fellowship.
This.Is.True.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Last time I looked this group of 6 parishes was part of a cluster of three groups, with 2 ministers to cover all 18 churches, which surprised me as there were three town churches included in that grouping. But checking now it does look as if the town churches are doing much better than they were then and have several services every Sunday. So it sounds as if not all rural ministries are in decline.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I've lost the statistics, but I read that there are more people attending church in rural areas than there are in urban areas, as a proportion of the population.

It could be said that these rural churches, despite low numbers (11 last time I visited one - it was a small village) are the real successes in Anglicanism, rather than urban mega-churches.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I've lost the statistics, but I read that there are more people attending church in rural areas than there are in urban areas, as a proportion of the population.
In Wales at least, that's not entirely true. Some urban areas tend to best the rural ones: a vast swathe of north Cardiff from Llandaff to Lisvane and Cyncoed is the really obvious one. The big factors that correlate to Christianity doing badly are:
1) votes cast in elections for the Labour Party;
2) ethnic minorities; and:
3) students.

Of course, those are three factors that are more common in urban areas than in rural ones, but they are not common to every urban area.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I've lost the statistics, but I read that there are more people attending church in rural areas than there are in urban areas, as a proportion of the population.
In Wales at least, that's not entirely true. Some urban areas tend to best the rural ones: a vast swathe of north Cardiff from Llandaff to Lisvane and Cyncoed is the really obvious one. The big factors that correlate to Christianity doing badly are:
1) votes cast in elections for the Labour Party;
2) ethnic minorities; and:
3) students.

Of course, those are three factors that are more common in urban areas than in rural ones, but they are not common to every urban area.
Could you please explain how numbers 1 and 3 adversely affect Christianity in Wales? I would have thought that students in particular would bolster churches, albeit probably not Anglican churches.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
In Wales at least, that's not entirely true. Some urban areas tend to best the rural ones: a vast swathe of north Cardiff from Llandaff to Lisvane and Cyncoed is the really obvious one. The big factors that correlate to Christianity doing badly are:
1) votes cast in elections for the Labour Party;
2) ethnic minorities; and:
3) students.

Of course, those are three factors that are more common in urban areas than in rural ones, but they are not common to every urban area.
Could you please explain how numbers 1 and 3 adversely affect Christianity in Wales? I would have thought that students in particular would bolster churches, albeit probably not Anglican churches.
No, (1) and (3) correlate strongly with people who declare themselves to be atheists (the data are all on Neighbourhood Statistics, behind the horrid horrid interface). Where the offsetting comes is that the people who do go to churches in those areas tend to be very generous indeed when it comes to the collection plate.

There will of course be plenty of examples of individuals from those three groups who attend churches. It is extremely bad statistics to take an indicator of a trend and suddenly start accusing individuals of being godless Commie Muslim hedonist layabouts who attend two lectures a week.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If rural churches don't have a decent hymn book more than likely it has nothing to do with the preferences of the congregation - they are more likely to have to use Mission Praise through the whim of a departed incumbent and are stuck with it because they can't afford to replace with something better - possibly even the old books that were heedlessly dumped.
A major plus point for using a laptop and digital projector, ISTM! So much more flexible.
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I've lost the statistics, but I read that there are more people attending church in rural areas than there are in urban areas, as a proportion of the population.

It could be said that these rural churches, despite low numbers (11 last time I visited one - it was a small village) are the real successes in Anglicanism, rather than urban mega-churches.
I understand this point, but what I don't understand is how a congregation of, say, 11 can be anywhere near sustainable if the people insist on a dedicated building to call their own and a minister to do the sacramental bits.

The way I see small congregations working is by having lay leadership and meeting in people's homes or hiring a village hall, the back room of a pub or whatever. But that probably won't fit with most people's idea of what 'church' ought to be. Sadly, IMO....
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I understand this point, but what I don't understand is how a congregation of, say, 11 can be anywhere near sustainable if the people insist on a dedicated building to call their own and a minister to do the sacramental bits.

The way I see small congregations working is by having lay leadership and meeting in people's homes or hiring a village hall, the back room of a pub or whatever. But that probably won't fit with most people's idea of what 'church' ought to be. Sadly, IMO....
Yes, but that ignores the maintenance of ancient structures (unless we say - as we could - that they should be the responsibility of English Heritage etc.).

More important, it makes the church far less visible within the community and removes a significant focus; in any case, there are people that come to special services in church buildings who would never come to a "house church" type gathering.

I can understand where you are coming from ecclesiologically, as I come from a similar place - but there is a real danger of making the faith into a "private" affair, hard to access.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, I agree- and just want to add, as a Churchman, that I think this can apply to 'Chapel' as well as 'Church', depending on local circumstances and tradition.

[ 13. September 2013, 08:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, but that ignores the maintenance of ancient structures (unless we say - as we could - that they should be the responsibility of English Heritage etc.).
I did ignore this, indeed! I'd certainly prefer them to be the responsibility of someone other than a church; the mission of the church is not to maintain historic buildings but to make disciples of all people groups and (ref. Kingdom Theology thread [Smile] ) extend God's kingdom on Earth (by which I mean both miraculous stuff and social action).
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
More important, it makes the church far less visible within the community and removes a significant focus; in any case, there are people that come to special services in church buildings who would never come to a "house church" type gathering... [T]here is a real danger of making the faith into a "private" affair, hard to access.
I don't think it does necessary make the church far less visible. It would remove the physical symbol, of course, but think of all the good Kingdom-building stuff you could do with the money freed up by not having a roof to repair and a big old building to heat!

It also puts the onus (where it belongs, I'd say) on us, the people of God, to be visible and effective witnesses of God within our community. And anyway, if the Christians aren't being a good witness to God's goodness, is the presence of a building really much of a draw? Does it significantly draw people to Christ?
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I understand this point, but what I don't understand is how a congregation of, say, 11 can be anywhere near sustainable if the people insist on a dedicated building to call their own and a minister to do the sacramental bits.

The way I see small congregations working is by having lay leadership and meeting in people's homes or hiring a village hall, the back room of a pub or whatever. But that probably won't fit with most people's idea of what 'church' ought to be. Sadly, IMO....
Yes, but that ignores the maintenance of ancient structures (unless we say - as we could - that they should be the responsibility of English Heritage etc.).

More important, it makes the church far less visible within the community and removes a significant focus; in any case, there are people that come to special services in church buildings who would never come to a "house church" type gathering.

I can understand where you are coming from ecclesiologically, as I come from a similar place - but there is a real danger of making the faith into a "private" affair, hard to access.
Adding to Baptist Trainfan's point, I work in a parish of 5 villages (or more, depending how you count them), which now has only two church buildings. One of the villages whose church has been closed has recently been coping with a tragedy. And not having a church building has made it very difficult indeed for the church to offer comfort. Had the church building still been open, its doors would have been open too, for people to come in and sit and light a candle. It would have been easy for people to find the minister there too, and have a chat about what was going on. As it is, there has been nowhere for people to gather, and nowhere for them to access the comfort of faith. And with the visible church gone from the village, most people have genuinely no idea who their (new) minister is, or where to find her - even though she actually lives in that village.

At other times we do use the village hall and the community centre. But they are not ours, and we cannot set up shop there. They are only ever church temporarily, for the hour or so of worship - and then the village reverts to being without a church again.
 
Posted by gog (# 15615) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It also puts the onus (where it belongs, I'd say) on us, the people of God, to be visible and effective witnesses of God within our community. And anyway, if the Christians aren't being a good witness to God's goodness, is the presence of a building really much of a draw? Does it significantly draw people to Christ?
I'd say from my experience, that it may not draw people, but the closing of the building can push people away. The feeling in the rural community can be one of the "THE CHURCH" abandoning us, so why should I care. Many of these folks are ones very much on the fringe (and of the folk religion, births marriages and deaths attendance type), however without the building they do not think the church is there, and the chance to engage with them is lost.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Originally posted by SKK:
quote:
don't think it does necessary make the church far less visible. It would remove the physical symbol, of course, but think of all the good Kingdom-building stuff you could do with the money freed up by not having a roof to repair and a big old building to heat!

Perhaps ... but an awful lot of churches which started up in community halls or homes have ended up buying buildings, partly because they need the facilities to do the work, andpartly because it's not so inconvenient and tiring to be constantly setting up chairs etc. every time. (There is also the concerpt of "sacred space" and "thin places" to add into the brew, but you may not think that's too important).

Originally posted by cottontail:
quote:
At other times we do use the village hall and the community centre. But they are not ours, and we cannot set up shop there. They are only ever church temporarily, for the hour or so of worship - and then the village reverts to being without a church again.


Of course it could be argued that this is a good model of the Church as a "pilgrim people" rather than a static institution!

[ 13. September 2013, 10:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Yes, but how do the church buildings relate to the pilgrim people. Two different models I have seen in my thesis. One is that it is the "tabernacle", despite being a building. That is when people move the church moves with them to some extent. This is done by a sort of slinky motion. The churches sort of have two buildings the historic building with a shrinking building and the new building with a growing building. They often are registered as separate congregations. Eventually the historic becomes too few to carry on, so everyone moves to the newer building but then they start to plant the next congregation out.

The other is that of caravansaria. A place where people stop off on their pilgrimage, somewhat sheltered and drawing all the pilgrims stopping in the surrounding countryside to a place of safety and community for a while.

As I said both of these models exist within NonConformity. Both of them see people as travelling people. They assume different mobilities of individuals. The second is far quicker more individualistic movement than the first and requires the build up of more "brand" loyalty than the first (i.e. people passing on where the nearest is to them).

Thus having church buildings is not incompatible with the people of God being a Pilgrim People.

Jengie
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Originally posted by cottontail:
quote:
At other times we do use the village hall and the community centre. But they are not ours, and we cannot set up shop there. They are only ever church temporarily, for the hour or so of worship - and then the village reverts to being without a church again.

Of course it could be argued that this is a good model of the Church as a "pilgrim people" rather than a static institution!
Maybe so, and I don't deny there are advantages too. But from the village's point of view, it can look awfully like, 'just passing through, folks'. Whereas what we want to communicate is that we are here to stay, and they can trust us to stick with them. Not easy when we have closed their church building.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by gog:
I'd say from my experience, that it may not draw people, but the closing of the building can push people away. The feeling in the rural community can be one of the "THE CHURCH" abandoning us, so why should I care. Many of these folks are ones very much on the fringe (and of the folk religion, births marriages and deaths attendance type), however without the building they do not think the church is there, and the chance to engage with them is lost.
And studies show that church closure tends to reduce the number of regular churchgoers overall, rather than simply dispersing them to other congregations. This is the situation I'm in, perhaps unfortunately. On the other hand, overlarge church buildings DO place an enormous burden on small numbers of worshippers, diverting their attention from other things.

One solution is to use or convert churches into multi-purpose spaces. But this in itself costs a lot of money, and requires being in the right place at the right time, and finding the right partnerships.

I know of one Anglican church that's converted the lower floor into shops with a side chapel and a worship area upstairs. I've seen another that's given half of its building to the NHS clinic next door, and yet another that knocked down its own extension and allowed the school across the road to expand onto the site. These were all city churches, but presumably rural churches could also be used in various ways. Having listed status could be a problem in some cases.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
I'd say from my experience, that it may not draw people, but the closing of the building can push people away.
This is the Dr. Beeching Branch Line syndrome - if you close the local railway line people will not drive to another station and go from there, they will either drive the whole way or stop travelling at all. Amalgamating 2 churches of 20 people gives you a new church of 30, not 40 - although that group of 30, free from the burden of two buildings, may have more free resources to reach out into the community.

quote:
On the other hand, overlarge church buildings DO place an enormous burden on small numbers of worshippers, diverting their attention from other things.
Robin Gill ("The Myth of the Empty Church") convincingly shows that this was often a result of denominational competition in the Victorian period, unsustainable even then and crippling today.

quote:
One solution is to use or convert churches into multi-purpose spaces. But this in itself costs a lot of money, and requires being in the right place at the right time, and finding the right partnerships.

Having listed status could be a problem in some cases.
Yes, yes, yes - puts the church at the heart of community. But, quite apart from the problems of finding cash, the villagers who come to church but yearly will mount a vigorous campaign against "spoiling our church".
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
I know church buildings are expensive (I don't think I've ever been a member of a congregation that wasn't raising money for expensive building works), but they're also one of Church of England's greatest resources, so long as they're actually used. Used, yes, for regular (preferably daily) worship, but for more than that. Use them for amateur dramatics (we've had great success putting on a Medieval mystery play), get the local volunteer orchestra/chorus band/brass band to have a concert there, organize a display of the work of local artists, start literary and historical societies or invite those already existing to use the church, have a knitting circle, host a lunch for people with dementia, involve local groups for children and young people (cubs, scouts, guides, sea cadets, etc).*

Make the church the focus of the local community. That's why it was built in the first place.

*Okay, don't do ALL of those things at once (you'd go crazy), but I hope my point is clear.

[ 13. September 2013, 13:09: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
... Which is going back to how they were used 500 years ago, before we decided that they were too "sacred" to use for "secular" purposes, and before we put in pews to remove any flexibility in using the space.

I was surprised/shocked/pleased to visit St. Mary's Hadleigh (Suffolk) recently ... they have removed half their pews, put in chairs/coffee tables/ sofas in the back half of the church and there are snooker tables in one of the side aisles. It doesn't look "nice" - but they do Cafι Church once a week (during which a Communion Service takes place in the Choir for those who wish to partake); they also do youth work. AFAIK there is no church hall as such.

[ 13. September 2013, 13:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... Which is going back to how they were used 500 years ago, before we decided that they were too "sacred" to use for "secular" purposes, and before we put in pews to remove any flexibility in using the space.
[Biased] That whole Reformation/Counterreformation idea (the Protestants and Catholics seem to have had it at the same time) was a bit of a mistake. Pews do make things a bit more difficult (hard to have a ceilidh, for instance), but we have pews and use our church for concerts and amateur dramatics, as well as for daily worship (we do many of the other things on the list as well, but that's partly enabled by having a separate parish room, even though it's too small for us most of the time).

[ 13. September 2013, 13:15: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Pews do make things a bit more difficult (hard to have a ceilidh, for instance).
St. Mary-le-Tower Ipswich - the usually-formal choral-tradition "civic church" no less - held a wonderful Jazz Concert last Christmas as part of their Christmas Tree Festival.

There was a licensed bar near the font [Smile] and (for the first time ever) dancing in the aisles - although I would not venture any judgement as to whether these facts were related. It was great ... and they're doing it again this year.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Ancient buildings can be a millstone round one's neck. They create the impression that the people of God are there to serve the building, rather than the building is there to serve them. Some people ingest the idea that serving heritage stonework is serving Christ. Or even that Christ is more fully served, if he is enclosed in heritage stonework. Ancient buildings also subject small congregations to frustrating interference from heritage tyrants who think the church is there to preserve 14th century tracery or the work of obscure C19 architects.

Unlike in 1870, nobody now, I hope, would choose to build a replica antique building. Nevertheless, if you've got one and it's visible, you should make the best of it. It would be silly to abandon it to some preservation trust if there's a congregation which would then have to find a room in the back of a pub to hold its services in.


On pilgrim people, the tabernacle did not mean the Israelites eschewed the concept of sacred space or thin places. It meant they took it with them. Perhaps that has something to say to freelance congregations who meet in village halls etc.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Avebury URC used to house the tourist information centre!

Now it runs itself as a quiet centre as well as a church. It is one of several congregations going that route.

Jengie
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Unlike in 1870, nobody now, I hope, would choose to build a replica antique building.
Actually, I think rather a lot of people *would*. I was recently in the historic centre of Warsaw, most of which was precisely that, a 1980s replica constructed to replace the one wiped out by the combined efforts of Hitler and the Red Army. People can have very good reasons for wanting to build deliberate antiques and I don't see why this shouldn't extend to how congregations view their church buildings.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
English Heritage (and others) promote the One Church, 100 Uses concept.

The trick in all this is to make sure that the church building still recognisably houses a worshipping community - it's easy for any mention of that to be relegated to a tiny notice by the loos (or whatever).

[ 13. September 2013, 14:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
[People can have very good reasons for wanting to build deliberate antiques and I don't see why this shouldn't extend to how congregations view their church buildings.
Two points.

1. Many people only "see" traditionally-styled church buildings; more modern and utilitarian ones can be "invisible" (sadly IMO).

2. Modern antiques may not have the maintenance problems of older buildings, and could be better insulated and easier to heat.

However one could say that they intrinsically possess an architectural dishonesty.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, I think rather a lot of people *would*. I was recently in the historic centre of Warsaw, most of which was precisely that, a 1980s replica constructed to replace the one wiped out by the combined efforts of Hitler and the Red Army. People can have very good reasons for wanting to build deliberate antiques and I don't see why this shouldn't extend to how congregations view their church buildings.
I can see, and have every sympathy with, why the Poles wanted to rebuild the centre of Warsaw to replicate what was there before after it had been smashed up by the Germans and Russians.

What I've less sympathy with, is the belief advocated by many C19 church leaders and architects, and prevalent until at least the 2nd World War, that to worship God properly, every church building should be re-ordered so as to emulate a dream version of the architectural styles of six centuries previously. There is no Christian or moral virtue in antiquarianism.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Actually, I think rather a lot of people *would*. I was recently in the historic centre of Warsaw, most of which was precisely that, a 1980s replica constructed to replace the one wiped out by the combined efforts of Hitler and the Red Army. People can have very good reasons for wanting to build deliberate antiques and I don't see why this shouldn't extend to how congregations view their church buildings.
I can see, and have every sympathy with, why the Poles wanted to rebuild the centre of Warsaw to replicate what was there before after it had been smashed up by the Germans and Russians.

What I've less sympathy with, is the belief advocated by many C19 church leaders and architects, and prevalent until at least the 2nd World War, that to worship God properly, every church building should be re-ordered so as to emulate a dream version of the architectural styles of six centuries previously. There is no Christian or moral virtue in antiquarianism.
I agree. But this wasn't always merely antiquarianism: people like Pugin (well, him especially) genuinely believed that there was a Christain virtue in Gothic, as opposed to classical, architecture- and of course although the Victorians did develop a vigorous industrial style (e.g. King's Cross station) in places, pretty much all their public buildings, ecclesiastical or secular, were based on gothic, classical or perhaps Byzantine architecture.

But in fairness , for all the reproductions of C14 century midland churches which litter C19 suburbs, at their best the Victorians- like the Georgians, whose classical churches (think St Martins in the Fields) could not remotely be mistaken for something from ancient Greece or Rome- produced buildings in a classical, gothic, byzantine, or whatever idiom that were still recognisably of their own time. This is, perhaps, even more true of the Edwardians.

Examples? Off the top of my head, Christ Church Streatham (sort-of Byzantine, early Victorian), St Wilfrid Harrogate (Edwardian gothic, recently MW'd), Westminster Cathedral (Edwardian byzantine).
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

1. Many people only "see" traditionally-styled church buildings; more modern and utilitarian ones can be "invisible" (sadly IMO).
Sadly, many modern churches are 'utilitarian' in the sense that they could be mistaken for a supermarket, a KwikFit garage, or what-have-you. But there is no reason why a totally modern church shouldn't express transcendence and be obviously a place of worship. Think St Paul's Bow Common (East London) or Notre-dame-du-Haut in Ronchamp. (Admittedly, they are both now over 50 years old, but I'm sure there are newer examples. Rare though they might be. )
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Svitlana2
I know of one Anglican church that's converted the lower floor into shops with a side chapel and a worship area upstairs. I've seen another that's given half of its building to the NHS clinic next door, and yet another that knocked down its own extension and allowed the school across the road to expand onto the site. These were all city churches, but presumably rural churches could also be used in various ways. Having listed status could be a problem in some cases.
We're talking about rural churches here - in small villages, you know?

1. Many villages no longer have ANY shops - nothing to do with there not being a convenient church-mall for them to be in, more with the Tesco/Asda/Morrisons in the nearby town.

2. If a church is listed (and most rural ones are, quite a few being Grade I) the chances of getting permission to do ANYTHING - even something as reasonable as putting solar panels on the roof - from EH are non-existent. Don't believe me? We've just spent 3 YEARS arguing that to have rooms built near the church they need a covered walkway between them and church : permission refused on "heritage" grounds.

3. NHS Clinic - we wish. The nearest surgery to my church is 7 miles away. The nearest dental surgery is 12.

Our school is just about keeping its head above water, but that's more to do with being used as an overflow school by a neighbouring (6 miles) village. At secondary school age pupils have a minimum 9 mile journey.

As for South Coast Kevin's suggestion that we should move to a pub... we've lost 2 out of 3 already and the last remaining only keeps going because the landlady works 4 night shifts in a care home 5 miles away.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
L'Organist: I recognise the truth of what you say and the frustrations that you must be feeling -shared, I'm sure, with other village dwellers. Yes, I live in a town but we are a mostly rural county and my mother lived in a village for years.

But your post raises the interesting point of rural churches being used as the basis for part-time Post Offices, community shops, simple cafes one or two mornings a week and the like. I know that is not easy and comes up against problems of planning, staffing, finance and security. But there must be a few places (at least) where this is possible and they can become the hub of a community which has lost all the others.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

1. Many people only "see" traditionally-styled church buildings; more modern and utilitarian ones can be "invisible" (sadly IMO).
Sadly, many modern churches are 'utilitarian' in the sense that they could be mistaken for a supermarket, a KwikFit garage, or what-have-you. But there is no reason why a totally modern church shouldn't express transcendence and be obviously a place of worship. Think St Paul's Bow Common (East London) or Notre-dame-du-Haut in Ronchamp. (Admittedly, they are both now over 50 years old, but I'm sure there are newer examples. Rare though they might be. )
I have to say that I find the exterior of St Paul's to be absolutely hideous, and it does look like a supermarket. That's probably not entirely its fault: I imagine supermarkets didn't look like that when it was built. The interior has some excellent features (notably the crucifix), but I still wouldn't hold it up as a paragon on good ecclesiastical architecture of any period. Notre-dame-du-Haut is much better, and is in my opinion the best thing Le Corbusier ever did.


L'ιglise Sainte-Jeanne-d'Arc in Rouen is gorgeous, both its exterior and its interior, but especially the interior. Finished in 1979, it's also more very slightly more recent than the other two.

But that's really beside the point of this thread. Rural England has plenty of churches. The solution to what to do with expensive old churches is NOT to build new churches, which are very expensive to build and often not much cheaper to maintain than their Mediaeval counterparts.

ETA: And frankly, I find the constant sniping at EH that goes on in so many church circles to be very annoying. Yes, they are 'difficult'. It's their job to be. Just like the office custodian, whose job is to know all about health and safety and insurance policies — he gets called 'difficult' a lot as well. I think EH generally do excellent work, as do groups like The Churches Conservation Trust and the Victorian Society. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the British can't too often be trusted with their own cultural heritage unless there's somebody to watch over them (they're still better in this regard than the Italians — almost everyone is — but the Germans put them to shame, possibly as a result of having so little left after most of their country was bombed to rubble).

[ 13. September 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
It really all does come down to people: if a village has a permanent population of fewer than 800 - and especially if fewer than 20-30 of those are fit, church-going and willing to run things PLUS live within walking distance of the church - then the chances of the church (people or building) doing much outside of services and, perhaps Sunday School, are not great.

As an example: tasks covered by our wardens include: opening up and locking up every day; transporting infirm parishioners to church on a Sunday; organising churchyard work parties; digging holes for cremated remains; hoisting relevant flags; washing altar linen; taking the sacrament to the housebound and organising the summer fete. All of that is in addition to the usual churchwarden stuff...

Our church has no loo, no sink, no drinking water, doubtful drains, no lights in the churchyard or surrounding lanes, no dedicated parking, etc and the church hall is a 10 minute brisk walk away down a lane with no footpath or lighting. English Heritage are completely oblivious to the needs of the worshipping parish - for heat, lack of draughts, etc - and we find that the diocesan architect tends to side with the heritage lobby, rather than being aware of the practical needs of a working church.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
... But this wasn't always merely antiquarianism: people like Pugin (well, him especially) genuinely believed that there was a Christain virtue in Gothic, as opposed to classical, architecture- ...
He did, but I can't help thinking he had a pernicious influence on a lot of clergy and mediocre architects for at least 80 years after his death.

A lot of C19 church architecture really is not very good, and most churches that were restored would be better now if they'd just been repaired.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
In keeping with the architectural tangent, though, I am reminded of a priest (no long dead, and incidentally Roman Catholic rather than Anglican), who really embodied village ministry in his little parish of St Hugh of Lincoln in Letchworth Garden City, then less of a middle class enclave than now and not much more than a building site.

His congregation had what was essentially a shed in which to worship, but with careful planning he furnished it to a high standard , using only pieces designed for the church upon consultation with the artisans who made them. An expert on liturgy, he drilled his servers to a very high standard. He taught the parish choir (a mixed one, unusually for the time) to sing Gregorian chant in the Solesmes manner, and to sing the mass to settings by Palestria and other polyphonic composers. A skilled calligrapher, he did the church posters himself (the lettering on the photo in the link above is almost certainly his hand; it is definitely in his style). He published a hymnal for his congregation at a time when Roman Catholic hymnals were rare.

Within the parish, he did much more than catechism classes (although he did devise a curriculum that augmented the penny catechism with dramas based on the lives of saints): it was known that he was always available to give a talk for a local literary society (topics included not only religion but the writings of Marcus Aurellius and several talks on Dante), and the people of the village made use his learning (he was, after all, perhaps the only man between London and Cambridge with a PhD, let alone three of them) and his linguistic capabilities when, for instance, they needed a letter translated. When Letchworth received a large number of Belgian refugees during the First World War, he learned enough Flemmish to be able to give the same homily three times in English, French, and Flemmish.

Of course, not every parish can be served by Adrian Fortescue (more's the pity, perhaps), but he does stand in my mind of how effective a person of great and varied gifts and supernatural energy may be as a priest in parochial ministry, particularly perhaps in a village context.

I think, though, that there may have been certain cultural changes about the EXPECTED role of a parish priest in a village context since Forescue's time (1907-1923). Less respect for the clergy, perhaps?

[ 13. September 2013, 17:37: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I guess this pattern, in a part of Norfolk I know well, is fairly typical. But the Parish Priest retires next month, so who knows what will happen then?
That seems insanely complicated. I wonder how anyone ever remembers when they're meant to be going to church.
I only had four churches in my last place, but I still turned up at the wrong venue, once in a blue moon!

As someone said earlier de-population of the countryside is a big reason why there are so many virtually empty rural churches every Sunday. I can't remember the stats without checking but the movement of the population from countryside to urban life was huge. Churches which just about accommodated burgeoning rural communities - focussed on thriving high-employment farming and cottage industries, were worse than decimated with industrialization. The bums on seats were working and sitting elsewhere. And it's been downhill ever since.

The parish-based system churches should probably have seriously re-thought the re-organization of the use of church plant back in the early 1900s.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The big factors that correlate to Christianity doing badly are:
1) votes cast in elections for the Labour Party;
2) ethnic minorities; and:
3) students.
If that's true (and it seems hard to belive to me) then Wales must be a funny place. Because its exactly the opposite only 200 miles away in London. All of those things tend to correllate with high church attendance.

(Probably iths the ethnic minorities that are the driver of all of them - recent immigrants tend to go to church, to vote Labour, and to live in the same general parts of town as students do because that's all the students can afford)


quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:


A fairly trivial example would be this: I have never been to an urban church (other than those strongly identifying as Evangelical) that did not have the New English Hymnal in the pews. I don't think I've ever been to a rural church that did.
Really? Other way round for me! The few rural churches I've been too tend to be NEH. Urban (which I'm much more fqamiliar with) far more varied and NEH only in the moderately-Anglo-Catholic places. (Extremne Anglo-catholics use something weird with Latin in it, the liberal Catholics use the Kevin Babyfood Papsoft Dummy Deadwords Mayhew books)
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The big factors that correlate to Christianity doing badly are:
1) votes cast in elections for the Labour Party;
2) ethnic minorities; and:
3) students.
If that's true (and it seems hard to belive to me) then Wales must be a funny place. Because its exactly the opposite only 200 miles away in London. All of those things tend to correllate with high church attendance.

(Probably iths the ethnic minorities that are the driver of all of them - recent immigrants tend to go to church, to vote Labour, and to live in the same general parts of town as students do because that's all the students can afford)
I think ken is nearer the mark than pererin, although of course whether 'ethnic minorities' are more or less likely to go to church than others depend on which particular minority groups we mean. People from the West Indies tend to be rather more enthusiastic churchgoers than Pakistanis, for instance.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:


A fairly trivial example would be this: I have never been to an urban church (other than those strongly identifying as Evangelical) that did not have the New English Hymnal in the pews. I don't think I've ever been to a rural church that did.
Really? Other way round for me! The few rural churches I've been too tend to be NEH. Urban (which I'm much more fqamiliar with) far more varied and NEH only in the moderately-Anglo-Catholic places. (Extremne Anglo-catholics use something weird with Latin in it, the liberal Catholics use the Kevin Babyfood Papsoft Dummy Deadwords Mayhew books) [/QB]
The NEH is certainly used in most London Anglo-Catholic churches (including one or two that might be called 'extreme' — in fact I think Bourne Street would protest at being called 'moderate'); the only one I can think of that might possibly not use it would be Kentish Town. More to the point, the NEH is used in King's College Chapel, and in every English Cathedral, college chapel, or civic I've ever visited. Locally, it's used by us (we're Prayer Book Catholic), the civic church, and every other non-Evangelical church (the rather stodgy BCP-only place just switched from Hymns Ancient and Modern).

The NEH is, for better or worse, very much the default hymnal of all stripes of English Anglicanism except the markedly evangelical. I suspect that's at least as much because organists like it as for any reason related to churchmanship.

[ 13. September 2013, 20:45: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
The big factors that correlate to Christianity doing badly are:
1) votes cast in elections for the Labour Party;
2) ethnic minorities; and:
3) students.
If that's true (and it seems hard to belive to me) then Wales must be a funny place. Because its exactly the opposite only 200 miles away in London. All of those things tend to correllate with high church attendance.

(Probably iths the ethnic minorities that are the driver of all of them - recent immigrants tend to go to church, to vote Labour, and to live in the same general parts of town as students do because that's all the students can afford)
I don't know London well at all, but I suspect you'll find a similar pattern that places such as Bromley (as in Kent, not Essex/Middlesex/whatever East London is pretentiously called) are strongholds of Christianity, whilst, say, Islington does very badly indeed (come to think of it, wasn't exactly this sort of disparity why the bishops issued that catastrophic report on inner city ministry in the 80s?). But there are distinctive sociological issues that could screw up any of those three proxies — both Wales and London being funny places in their own ways:
1) the sorts of people who vote Labour in London are very different from the sorts of people who vote Labour in Wales, and they live in very different sorts of neighbourhoods;
2) ethnic minority groups are much more diverse and widespread in London, which can throw things in all sorts of directions — one particularly obvious snag is the large Jewish community, which obviously isn't church-going, but largely appears as White British (equally, in Wales, we can rule out their being the driver of all this, as it's places that are high-90s% White British that are the least Christian — IIRC, Maerdy, at the top of the Rhondda Fach is the most irreligious place in Wales);
3) I don't think the student picture will actually vary that much, but it will be a less distinct pattern when the background is not rural Wales: UCL won't stand out in the data like Aberystwyth does.
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
On the hymn book issue, I have never seen anything other than the NEH in all London Anglo-Catholic churches, even the Roman Rite ones like St Albans Holborn and St Silas (at their parish mass.) The only exceptions I can think of are Holy Redeemer and St Cuthberts which use the English Hymnal.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Pursuing the tangent, the NEH is used in both Liverpool cathedrals: the Anglican one which is low-MOTR in style, and the Roman Catholic one. But in my limited experience only cathedral-emulating parish churches with choirs use it; ordinary bog-standard ones will use one of the Kevin Mayhew books unless they are evangelical in which case it will be Mission Praise and more recent ones of that ilk. Or else one of the various editions of Hymns Ancient and Modern if they are traditional and haven't got the money or the determined director of music to replace them.

Though it is often hard to tell which book is their default in these days of printed service leaflets and digital projectors.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
St Alban's cathedral has Common Praise, as a matter of interest.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Though it is often hard to tell which book is their default in these days of ... digital projectors.
Not common in most RURAL churches, though, surely?

(Hint ...)
 
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
St Alban's cathedral has Common Praise, as a matter of interest.
That reminds me - so does St Barts the Great which is an exception to the position of other Anglo-Catholic parishes.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Not too many cows and sheep round there, either ...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Though it is often hard to tell which book is their default in these days of ... digital projectors.
Not common in most RURAL churches, though, surely?

(Hint ...)
Hint taken, and tangent-prolonging apologised for. But I don't know! Surely a projector is no more expensive than a whole set of new hymnbooks?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
But its not just the projector: its screen, plus having a convenient power supply.

IME rural churches can have dodgy electrics, no convenient blank walls, etc.

I'm amazed that there is a feeling rural churches with NEH are rare: in my neck of the woods the only churches with Mission Praise are those which have had it wished on them, But I do know a number who still use the old maroon A&M revised...in the case of one despite a determined attempt by a previous incumbent to get rid of it on the grounds that the type was too small.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I'm not sure where all these NEH places are round here, as nobody at all in this deanery (nor anybody I know in the neighbouring ones) uses it, high or low, rural or urban, choral tradition or not. What is common is Common Praise. Which is in fact the latest iteration of A&M, ditching the latter section of A&MR that nobody ever used much, and adding a load of stuff from EH. Which I suppose may explain things.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
IME rural churches can have dodgy electrics, no convenient blank walls, etc.
Or - even in 2013 - no electric supply at all (one of the Scarrowbeck churches upthread does not, and that is true of at least two other churches in the area although one is redundant and only used for worship once or twice each year).

Conversely I recently visited a rural Suffolk church where there was a sign saying, "The electrical supply in this church was upgraded by the kind generosity of John Bloggs, now living in Australia, thanks be to God".

[ 14. September 2013, 22:48: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But its not just the projector: its screen, plus having a convenient power supply.

IME rural churches can have dodgy electrics, no convenient blank walls, etc.

I'm amazed that there is a feeling rural churches with NEH are rare: in my neck of the woods the only churches with Mission Praise are those which have had it wished on them, But I do know a number who still use the old maroon A&M revised...in the case of one despite a determined attempt by a previous incumbent to get rid of it on the grounds that the type was too small.
And on the book side will last (although may look 'outdated' quickly).

If the projector+screen is all it pays for itself quickly (especially when you allow for the fact that you need to have the books for peak congregation). But it then takes another person out the congo.
There is also copyright if you're singing new songs (though at that point you'd also need to update your books, so if you have self control...).

A large village church (while still rural, but likely electrified) would definitely break even quickly (you can also use it for other things). But the smaller villages probably not.

[ 14. September 2013, 22:59: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
To return to the OP ..... with the reduction in clergy numbers and reduction in services people in rural areas are expected to travel if they want to go to a service each Sunday. Why be surprised that they travel a few more miles into a town to the same church each Sunday?

Rural churches can be a real way of bringing communities together. Equally resourcing and indifference (born fro perhaps the idea of being the only church around) means that they have little impact whatsoever. Even the much trumpeted "we're here for hatches matches and dispatches" goes nowhere of that's all people attend for.

Sadly rural churches now are suffering from their history. People in rural areas have long memories and don't forget the excesses and arrogance of the past IME. There used to be a feeling that rural churches didn't get the brightest of parsons (as they were called) and some of them were really mad tbh.

In the fairly small area I was born in there was a parson who "owned" the village; one was gay and predatory, another so old that he couldn't relate to anyone under 60; the town church had a time server in freehold who just didn't care; one was completely off his trolley. Several just couldn't relate to rural life: they were upper class university graduates from Cambridge colleges (who held a few of the livings in the village). In the village I lived, the vicar only visited the posh people - if you were poor, hard luck. Didn't matter much I suppose as he openly denied the supernatural aspects of faith from the pulpit and was a mate of Don Cupitt of Sea of faith fame.

You don't then wonder why the church in this area was impotent then and impotent now: the clergy were a standing joke and I mean a joke to everyone - there was no respect.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
I think we need to be quite hard-nosed about the reduction in clergy numbers. Generally the vicar gets a stipend of about £22.5k, and that amounts to about half the cost of keeping a parish running. This means that with the average adult giving about £8.75 per week (or £450-ish per annum), one needs about 100 adult parishioners to keep a benefice going. Places with just 20 or so people who go to church are not going to be a going concern unless they all start putting £50 notes in the collection plate. Now, England isn't as bad as Wales, but if it were to reach that awful figure of only 1.05% of the population attending church on the average Sunday, then the expectation should be one priest for an area with a population of 9500. If people want vicars in areas with smaller populations, then they are going to have to start getting their neighbours to come to church, regardless of the incumbent having been Beelzebul quarter of a century ago.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
£8.75 a week in the collection plate ?

That is steep for anyone on benefits.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
£8.75 a week in the collection plate ?

That is steep for anyone on benefits.
Including pensioners. If my grandmother were a churchgoer, that plus the cost of public transport/taxi would be quite unrealistic...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Not just pensioners. In our neck of the woods the average adult salary is well below £22K.

As a parish we are reliant on a high number of retired who benefit from index-linked public sector pensions - but as and when they fall off the perch we have a problem.

This year, for the first time, we may not pay our "Parish Share" to the diocese. In previous years this has been resisted but the pressure now is probably too great.

And since we have a house-for-duty half-share of a priest, we were given no help to find them, we paid for all the work to the vicarage ourselves (including re-wiring) because the diocese refused, plus we pay for our own locums, I think not paying is reasonable.

What has the diocese done for us in the recent past: landed us with a DAC and "approved" architect who even the English Heritage person from the local council says seem determined to order us to go for the most expensive option every time something needs to be done to our Grade I listed church...
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
£8.75 a week in the collection plate ?

That is steep for anyone on benefits.
Believe it or not, it's (within 2p of, as I didn't actually look up the exact figure) the average in Wales, which is scarcely the richest part of Britain and has a significant proportion of people on benefits and pensioners.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not just pensioners. In our neck of the woods the average adult salary is well below £22K.
I was referring to the incumbent's stipend (again, I was quoting from memory: the actual figure is £22,127, from page 10 of this report). You may disagree with the level at which stipends are set, but it is what they are (I actually think they're quite reasonable). And even if you skimp on the incumbent, the other half of the cost of running a parish will still be there.

Such things as not paying parish shares and challenging the incumbent's expenses on the PCC are not a road I'd like to go along, although I do have sympathy for churches where that sort of thing seems to be the only option.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Many Nonconformists - Baptists & Congregationalists anyway - have to pay all their costs locally and know well that no offering = no minister. That encourages good giving ... but also means that big, rich churches can afford multiple staff and good facilities while small churches suffer.
 
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
£8.75 a week in the collection plate ?

That is steep for anyone on benefits.
More to the point, it assumes that the Church of England operates by requiring that every church pay its own way regardless of its means. Thankfully it doesn't. Wealthier churches (which tend to be urban) subsidize poorer ones (which are often rural).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Wealthier churches (which tend to be urban) subsidize poorer ones (which are often rural).
If they pay their parish share, that is ... (or the equivalent in other denominations). And that only covers ministry costs, doesn't it? Not keeping the roof on.

I presume that there may be some rural churches which are bankrolled by the giving of just one or two individuals. They can get into serious difficulty when such "givers" die and the rest of the congregation is asked to pay a realistic share.

[ 15. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
More to the point, it assumes that the Church of England operates by requiring that every church pay its own way regardless of its means. Thankfully it doesn't. Wealthier churches (which tend to be urban) subsidize poorer ones (which are often rural).
That can only work up to a point. If pushed to extremes, one could have small, stereotypically rural churches that complacently made no attempt at any sort of outreach, whilst neglecting urban (or, in practice, suburban) ministry. The norm has to be that a benefice should be able to function independently if the rest of the Church corporately fell into the sea.
 
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Many Nonconformists - Baptists & Congregationalists anyway - have to pay all their costs locally and know well that no offering = no minister. That encourages good giving ... but also means that big, rich churches can afford multiple staff and good facilities while small churches suffer.
Sounds reminiscent of the Parable of the Sower. (I really am turning into an evangelical in my middle age...)
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Are the richer churches not able to adopt one of the smaller, struggling churches and allow them to share some of their resources?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
IIRC this has been done in one or two places, though I can't remember where. Sounds rather more useful IMHO than 'twinning' with a church in Germany or where-have-you.

I know that Parish Profiles, produced as adverts for a new priest during an interregnum, are duty bound to present the most positive picture possible of the parish (ah! Alliteration's artful aid always assists!), but ISTM that there are many small rural congregations around the UK doing their very best, not only to maintain a pattern of worship (however minimalist that may be, compared with previous years), but also to engage with whatever form of 'community' there is on their patch.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Bishops Finger- it's what Rural Ministries does, in part. Along with trying to support multi-usage of rural church buildings
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Are the richer churches not able to adopt one of the smaller, struggling churches and allow them to share some of their resources?
I've read that this happens occasionally. It would be interesting to know how it works out, because of course it challenges the very notion of (Baptist and URC) congregationalism.

Interconnectedness isn't always the saviour, though. The Methodists aren't congregational, and their circuit system binds churches together closely, but they close more churches than the other denominations, many of them rural. A circuit can offer any expertise and advice that it has to its member churches, but a circuit won't carry a church that can't pay its way. And there are congregations that wouldn't want such help either.

I suspect that it would be difficult in any case for rural churches to help each other in this way, because none of them are all that successful. It's just that some are getting by better than others. The help would have to be from town/suburb to the countryside, and there would possibly be cultural issues to overcome in that scenario.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Are the richer churches not able to adopt one of the smaller, struggling churches and allow them to share some of their resources?
When interviewed on the local radio station religious programme, some years ago, about two big churches that had done this, a former bishop of this diocese said they were 'unchristian'.

What I think he meant by this, was that if they had human or financial resources to spare, they should channel them through his diocesan structures rather than set up ad hoc relationships direct. I can sort of see why he didn't like it, but I didn't and still wouldn't agree agree with him. People are more likely to give and get involved in relationships they can see.

But, as a bishop, publicly on radio to condemn those that don't agree with your views on diocesan policy as 'unchristian', is way beyond the realm of legitimate self expression.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
That sort of policy (the rich churches choosing who they direct their resources to) might not be unchristian as such but it is definitely uncatholic. It's like those right-wingers who complain about taxes and think they should direct all their money to charities they approve of: in other words, keep in control.

The Church is not a federation of like-minded communities, it is a body. Therefore the whole body (acting through the bishop, synods etc) should decide how to allocate its resources. In St Paul's terms, it's not for the left foot to dictate whether or not the right buttock should be fed.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
And was it the direct relationship that was described as unchristian? Or were they publicly saying that they were withholding their parish share because they didn't agree with diocese on some matter and the direct relationship was a form of powerplay?

Carys
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I have known at least one pair of Baptist churches which have twinned in this way - except it was the large prosperous Home Counties rural church which was supporting the small inner-city one!

And each church sent groups of ?young people to stay in the other's environment for a week's holiday, to broaden their experience of life.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
There are 2 large things that help keep us afloat:
1. A worshipper who is extremely wealthy who, effectively, bankrolls the parish.
2. The fact that we stress that the church is the VILLAGE church - not denominational or of a class but for all of the village.

The latter means that one of the best attended events in the year is the annual requiem where all those from the village who have died during the year are remembered by name.

The church also acts as a centre (or runs/ organises/ kick-starts) for things like a free bus-service to the nearest local town for things like the doctor/dentist or hospital; a lunch club for all ages; a party for all newcomers so they can meet people (rural houses can be isolated with no visible neighbours); free church magazine subscription for a year after you move in; etc, etc.

I think we're doing a lot but the thing that worries is the lack of newcomers prepared to pitch in, join-up and actually DO something, rather than sit back..
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0