|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Too many church buildings?
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The Church Buildings Review Group has published a report suggesting that the Church of England needs to pull in its horns with regard to buildings and stop trying to offer services in every parish. This has been commented on in the media, and I was wondering what others felt?
In particular, I see two points here. One is the way in which congregations in listed buildings have to sweat and toil to pay for buildings which may not suit their needs and which are part of the whole nation's (and not just their own) heritage. The other is that many Nonconformist groups with old buildings have simply closed them: was that the right thing to do?
I haven't read the report but I'm sure it doesn't offer any easy answers.
[ 21. December 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
As an Anglican in a country without an established church, I can say wholeheartedly that if the nation wants to keep a beautiful/historic building going, it's welcome to do so...and to pay for it.
In Ottawa, they've just announced the sale to a (hopefully sympathetic group) of one of the older. historic (in our terms) church buildings. The cost of maintenance and bringing up to provincially mandated health and safety standards was far beyond what the congregation could have paid. Its congregation was merged with another less than a year ago. Within the last six months we've watched two other mergers, leaving two buildings for sale ... one a fine example of modern church building, the other historic (again, in our terms) with necessary repairs (as in the previous example) many millions and vastly beyond what the congregation could pay.
And those mergers, though they hurt, were right. And those sales, if they're done well, were/will be right.
Because what matters is the people of God worshipping and working together. A building, any building, is a means to an end -- worshipping and working together. It is not an end in itself, because if it is, the people are worshipping the building and that's a form of idolatry. I recognize that there can be great affection and attachment to a building which is not negative, but when the building becomes the whole purpose of being a congregation, then it has slipped over a line.
Yet another case where the CofE is wildly out of step with all other Anglican groups, and in this case to its detriment. Again, I say, if the state or someone else wants a building to stay in place, let the state pay. Otherwise the church is simply a branch of the state, and not simply the people of God at a particular time and place.
John
[ 21. December 2015, 14:08: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
It seems sensible to merge congregations in cities (at least where the churchmanship is compatible). But the old buildings are often not the problem in cities.
The Church of England has a lot more old buildings than Anglican churches in other parts of the world. It's nice for those buildings to be used for the use intended.
To some extent, the state does pay for upkeep.
The real problem I think is that many of the older buildings are in what are now villages with a small population of churchgoers (outside Christmas and Easter). Without public transport links, it's not always feasible for congregations to merge into a church in another village that by UK standards is fair way away.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Been through 2 closures, sales, amalgamations of congregations. Both times, a chunk of people were lost. Some change denominations, some quit entirely. The future can look quite bleak. Less snd less.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
To some extent, the state does pay for upkeep.
Does it? In what sense?
It seems pretty obvious that if there is a declining population together with a large number of expensive and under-used buildings, something has got to give.
The sad part is the level of hand-wringing that goes on in England. The Church of Scotland faced with a similar situation set about ruthlessly selling off buildings that were no longer necessary.
The truth is that many Anglican parish churches are not that old, not architecturally that interesting and are no great loss. I was even told that many built since the 1830s were simply chosen from a catalogue.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Church of Scotland faced with a similar situation set about ruthlessly selling off buildings that were no longer necessary.
True, but that was partly because there were often multiple buildings (ex-CofS and ex-Free Church) in the same parish post-1929. It took something like 50-60 years before sense prevailed.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
True, but that was partly because there were often multiple buildings (ex-CofS and ex-Free Church) in the same parish post-1929. It took something like 50-60 years before sense prevailed.
OK forget the CofS then. Other denominations are often selling off unsustainable churches. A congregational church (not particularly notable, built to an Anglican style from the 1850s) near here was recently rebuilt as flats. South Wales is full of empty/former chapels.
Tis life. What is so special about the Anglican church that buildings are never allowed to go out of use?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
My brother-in-law was pastor of two Lutheran churches in central Texas. He was doing two at once, because neither church could afford its own pastor -- there were perhaps 50 congregants in each church.
Why, said I, don't your two churches merge, Pastor Jim? They were separated by perhaps ten miles of prairie, not a very important distance in Texas. Either closing one, and everybody going to the other, or closing both and erecting a new church in the middle, seemed sensible to me.
Pastor Jim said that neither congregation was willing to give up its building, because of the graveyards. The graveyard of each church was just to one side, and had everybody's graves -- grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. Nobody was willing to give up on those. Neither was moving the graves a possibility. And so the pastor had to do all the moving, because his flock wouldn't.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Tis life. What is so special about the Anglican church that buildings are never allowed to go out of use?
Grade 1 listed church buildings.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
The truth is that many Anglican parish churches are not that old, not architecturally that interesting and are no great loss. I was even told that many built since the 1830s were simply chosen from a catalogue. [/QB]
I think there is a mixed situation here. Many urban and suburban church buildings are not that old or interesting. But rural England is full of medieval churches in communities with small populations. That is the problem.
I actually think the rural parish church serves a purpose simply by being there. It is a symbol of Christian presence in the heart of the community. It also symbolises the Church's commitment to those communities. An Incarnational religion should not disdain the physical.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Grade 1 listed church buildings.
The fact that it is listed is not a reason why a dwindling parish congregation, or a hard-pressed denominational structure has to keep the thing going.
There are other models - for example a charitable trust now owns two former parish churches in a town near me. The one is used for musical events and the other is used for a range of local events. Neither have been used for services for many decades, but the fabric needed to be retained due to the listed status.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
Grade 1 listed church buildings.
The fact that it is listed is not a reason why a dwindling parish congregation, or a hard-pressed denominational structure has to keep the thing going.
There are other models - for example a charitable trust now owns two former parish churches in a town near me. The one is used for musical events and the other is used for a range of local events. Neither have been used for services for many decades, but the fabric needed to be retained due to the listed status.
That's viable to a limited extent, but the market for grade 1 listed former churches is, I suggest, saturated. The typical struggling village already has a far more practical village hall that is more than suitable for the village's musical output and has lower operating costs.
I know of a charitable trust that is certainly struggling to maintain the couple of churches it has.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
I think there is a mixed situation here. Many urban and suburban church buildings are not that old or interesting. But rural England is full of medieval churches in communities with small populations. That is the problem.
Agreed it is a mixed picture, but the oldest and most expensive buildings are often in places where there is the least ability to pay for them. If it is really true that these buildings should be retained for the country then is it reasonable for the congregation to pay for it?
I am aware of a very large, very old parish church in England. Some of the interior has been determined to be of particular historical interest, and so the relevant authorities have decreed that certain things need to be done to keep them in good repair. This attracts some payment, however the available grants and payments have not covered the cost of this, so the congregation is needing to pay for some of the costs. It is quite likely that grant payments for this kind of thing will decrease in the future.
So then the congregation is left in the position that they should have to shell out to pay for the national interest in retaining the historical artifacts.
In my view the best long-term course of action would be to leave the building (which most likely would never happen). The state - or others - would then be forced to pay the true costs of preservation.
quote:
I actually think the rural parish church serves a purpose simply by being there. It is a symbol of Christian presence in the heart of the community. It also symbolises the Church's commitment to those communities. An Incarnational religion should not disdain the physical.
I understand that argument, but do not believe that the "Christian presence" is really compromised by accepting that architectural fashion from former centuries is too expensive to continue into the future. Someone has to pay for it - who are you suggesting will do that?
[ 21. December 2015, 15:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
That's viable to a limited extent, but the market for grade 1 listed former churches is, I suggest, saturated. The typical struggling village already has a far more practical village hall that is more than suitable for the village's musical output and has lower operating costs.
I know of a charitable trust that is certainly struggling to maintain the couple of churches it has.
If the church can't afford it, and the charitable trust can't afford it and the state won't pay for it, then the only alternative is to let it rot.
There is no reason why the present/future congregations of parish churches should be held to a financial ransom by the whims of the wider population and the expensive architectural tastes of the past.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
The OP touched on what is possibly the key issue.
quote:
the Church of England needs to pull in its horns with regard to buildings and stop trying to offer services in every parish
It's the highlighted phrase that's important. It's demonstrative of the Starbucks-like attitude the CofE has. While their motto might be 'A Christian presence in every community' that's not what they really mean. It would be more honest if it was stated as 'An Anglican presence in every community'. It's not really about a christian presence; it's about a christian presence that looks and feels a particular way.
If a service were to stop being made, the question is: what provision is there for the people in the community? If the Anglican church is the only one there, then it seems wrong to do so. But let's say a community has a fair few churches; say, a Baptist, a Methodist, a couple of charismatics and maybe a URC. Is it really such a tragedy if someone leaves the CofE and finds a different expression of faith?
If someone leaves my church and goes to a New Frontiers, of course we'd be sad to see them go, but it's not like they're giving up their faith. To try to encourage people to stick with one denomination only isn't faithfulness, it's ecclesiastical jingoism.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Someone has to pay for it - who are you suggesting will do that?
In my neck of the woods, the locals. We've got a church with 11th century bits, heavily rebuilt c1350, in a village of 250ish people.
The congregation week to week is about 25, but it's packed at Christmas, harvest supper and the various other village high days.
However, the locals do seem to want to know that the church is there, doing it's thing, when they're not, and that it would be there were they to turn up. When work needs doing funds are raised pretty quickly, and everyone gets their chequebook out - even if they're only in the place once a year. From observation of various other parts of the country I wouldn't say that was particularly unusual out in the sticks.
I think that's another difference between urban and rural (to massively over generalise) - the people aren't there much but do care, and they pay for it.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The congregation week to week is about 25, but it's packed at Christmas, harvest supper and the various other village high days.
However, the locals do seem to want to know that the church is there, doing it's thing, when they're not, and that it would be there were they to turn up. When work needs doing funds are raised pretty quickly, and everyone gets their chequebook out - even if they're only in the place once a year. From observation of various other parts of the country I wouldn't say that was particularly unusual out in the sticks.
I think that's another difference between urban and rural (to massively over generalise) - the people aren't there much but do care, and they pay for it.
Well that's kinda fair enough where it happens, but this attitude is not the one held everywhere, even in rural communities. Sometimes the whole community is far too small to shoulder the cost of keeping an Anglican church going (never mind any other denomination).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Someone has to pay for it - who are you suggesting will do that?
In my neck of the woods, the locals. We've got a church with 11th century bits, heavily rebuilt c1350, in a village of 250ish people.
The congregation week to week is about 25, but it's packed at Christmas, harvest supper and the various other village high days.
However, the locals do seem to want to know that the church is there, doing it's thing, when they're not, and that it would be there were they to turn up. When work needs doing funds are raised pretty quickly, and everyone gets their chequebook out - even if they're only in the place once a year. From observation of various other parts of the country I wouldn't say that was particularly unusual out in the sticks.
I think that's another difference between urban and rural (to massively over generalise) - the people aren't there much but do care, and they pay for it.
The flipside is that there are 7 churches in our benefice, split between a stipendiary priest, an NSM, and an LLM. That notwithstanding we manage a service in our church every week, either HC or Mattins as the personnel rotate, and the congregation rarely dips below the 25 (occasionally "soaring" to more like 70 - which is about a third of the village). The parish pays its full share, and funds its own improvements - latest being toilets and heating (we don't have a village hall so the parish council now meets there).
I'm not sure anyone's in much of a position to gainsay whether it's worth continuing with it all on that basis. The people that live there, us, want it, and we pay for it. Even those that don't go.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The OP touched on what is possibly the key issue.
quote:
the Church of England needs to pull in its horns with regard to buildings and stop trying to offer services in every parish
It's the highlighted phrase that's important. It's demonstrative of the Starbucks-like attitude the CofE has. While their motto might be 'A Christian presence in every community' that's not what they really mean. It would be more honest if it was stated as 'An Anglican presence in every community'. It's not really about a christian presence; it's about a christian presence that looks and feels a particular way.
If a service were to stop being made, the question is: what provision is there for the people in the community? If the Anglican church is the only one there, then it seems wrong to do so. But let's say a community has a fair few churches; say, a Baptist, a Methodist, a couple of charismatics and maybe a URC. Is it really such a tragedy if someone leaves the CofE and finds a different expression of faith?
If someone leaves my church and goes to a New Frontiers, of course we'd be sad to see them go, but it's not like they're giving up their faith. To try to encourage people to stick with one denomination only isn't faithfulness, it's ecclesiastical jingoism.
A very good point. When the Ordinariate was set up for Anglicans who wished to swim the Tiber, it was suggested (hoped?) that maybe some CofE buildings could move with them. Often these would probably have been suburban Anglo-catholic barns in otherwise quite well churched areas. But the Anglican authorities were horrified. It seemed they would rather see the church builds fall down than pass to Papists.
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So then the congregation is left in the position that they should have to shell out to pay for the national interest in retaining the historical artefacts.
That, in essence, is the crux of the argument for me.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
But let's say a community has a fair few churches; say, a Baptist, a Methodist, a couple of charismatics and maybe a URC. Is it really such a tragedy if someone leaves the CofE and finds a different expression of faith?
This really isn't the case in the rural areas we are talking about. In most villages everyone else upped and left years ago. The Anglican Church, with its historic building in tow, is all that is left. In some villages, closing the church indicates to the villagers that the Anglicans have gone too. I've heard first hand reports or parishioners asking a vicar why he is there since they don't have a vicar anymore: The building has closed so they aren't in a parish and don't have a vicar. This is not the case, but perception is very important.
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
When the Ordinariate was set up for Anglicans who wished to swim the Tiber, it was suggested (hoped?) that maybe some CofE buildings could move with them. Often these would probably have been suburban Anglo-catholic barns in otherwise quite well churched areas. But the Anglican authorities were horrified. It seemed they would rather see the church builds fall down than pass to Papists.
To be fair, there can be legal complications. I remember a situation in Scotland where a new church wanted to buy a closed CofS building at a peppercorn price. Everyone thought that it was a good idea, until the Charity Regulator ruled that it had to be sold on the open market to the highest bidder.
I've seen the same thing happen in England, but here the church building was both listed and situated in a Conservation Area, which meant it had little attraction for a potential developer. This meant that the Charity Commission allowed it to be sold for a very low price.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
Quite a good quote, I think, from the Report in questions:
"67. The approach of Christians who do not recognise the importance of place perhaps
has more to do with post-Enlightenment reductionism than biblical faith.12
Evangelical Christians are recognising this.
13 When the importance of place is
recognised, Christianity becomes a ‘powerful source of redemption and repair to the
pathologies of extreme mobility, placelessness and ecological destruction that
characterise modern life.’"
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
The OP touched on what is possibly the key issue.
quote:
the Church of England needs to pull in its horns with regard to buildings and stop trying to offer services in every parish
It's the highlighted phrase that's important. It's demonstrative of the Starbucks-like attitude the CofE has. While their motto might be 'A Christian presence in every community' that's not what they really mean. It would be more honest if it was stated as 'An Anglican presence in every community'. It's not really about a christian presence; it's about a christian presence that looks and feels a particular way.
If a service were to stop being made, the question is: what provision is there for the people in the community? If the Anglican church is the only one there, then it seems wrong to do so. But let's say a community has a fair few churches; say, a Baptist, a Methodist, a couple of charismatics and maybe a URC. Is it really such a tragedy if someone leaves the CofE and finds a different expression of faith?
If someone leaves my church and goes to a New Frontiers, of course we'd be sad to see them go, but it's not like they're giving up their faith. To try to encourage people to stick with one denomination only isn't faithfulness, it's ecclesiastical jingoism.
A very good point. When the Ordinariate was set up for Anglicans who wished to swim the Tiber, it was suggested (hoped?) that maybe some CofE buildings could move with them. Often these would probably have been suburban Anglo-catholic barns in otherwise quite well churched areas. But the Anglican authorities were horrified. It seemed they would rather see the church builds fall down than pass to Papists.
I think that's a little unfair - the situation in many places was that the priest *and a minority* of the congregation went anywhere. most didn't.
It would have taken some pretty brave "Anglican authorities" to tell the shellshocked remaining 75% (or whatever) feeling hurt and betrayed that the minority were taking the building.
Even in the situation where it was a majority who went (and I can think of literally 1, perhaps 2 congregations where this was the case - I had to think quite carefully at the time myself so was very close to the whole thing) it would still have been a brave move to signal to the loyal remnant that they should find somewhere else to go because those going to the Ordinariate have taken the keys and the furniture.
There was a slightly more realistic hope that maybe some buildings could be shared, but I don't think actually taking the buildings with them was ever more than a glint in the eye of FiF's previous leadership.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
A very good point. When the Ordinariate was set up for Anglicans who wished to swim the Tiber, it was suggested (hoped?) that maybe some CofE buildings could move with them. Often these would probably have been suburban Anglo-catholic barns in otherwise quite well churched areas. But the Anglican authorities were horrified. It seemed they would rather see the church builds fall down than pass to Papists.
I think that's a little unfair - the situation in many places was that the priest *and a minority* of the congregation went anywhere. most didn't.
It would have taken some pretty brave "Anglican authorities" to tell the shellshocked remaining 75% (or whatever) feeling hurt and betrayed that the minority were taking the building.
Even in the situation where it was a majority who went (and I can think of literally 1, perhaps 2 congregations where this was the case - I had to think quite carefully at the time myself so was very close to the whole thing) it would still have been a brave move to signal to the loyal remnant that they should find somewhere else to go because those going to the Ordinariate have taken the keys and the furniture.
There was a slightly more realistic hope that maybe some buildings could be shared, but I don't think actually taking the buildings with them was ever more than a glint in the eye of FiF's previous leadership.
I am happy to accept you know more about this. I did think that in some places only a small remnant remained. But the principle is still there. And I also recall (correct me if I am misrecalling - very possible) the Bishop of London saying some less than positive things about the notion. The attitude seemed to be 'these are Anglican buildings, we are damned if we will let anyone else use them.'
I understand the whole Ordinariate business was sensitive, so maybe it is not the best example.
[fixed code, please preview post]
[ 21. December 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Quite a good quote, I think, from the Report in questions:
"67. The approach of Christians who do not recognise the importance of place perhaps
has more to do with post-Enlightenment reductionism than biblical faith.12
Evangelical Christians are recognising this.
13 When the importance of place is
recognised, Christianity becomes a ‘powerful source of redemption and repair to the
pathologies of extreme mobility, placelessness and ecological destruction that
characterise modern life.’"
The mysterious "12" and "13" here are references to footnotes - ignore them and just read the text!
Interestingly, this paragraph follows a quote from Brueggemann: "In the [Bible] there is no timeless space, but there is also no spaceless time. There is rather storied place, that is a place which has meaning because of the history lodged there. ... This means that biblical faith cannot be presented simply as an historical movement indifferent to place which could have happened in one setting as well as another, because it is undeniably fixed in this place with this meaning.".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
But let's say a community has a fair few churches; say, a Baptist, a Methodist, a couple of charismatics and maybe a URC. Is it really such a tragedy if someone leaves the CofE and finds a different expression of faith?
This really isn't the case in the rural areas we are talking about. In most villages everyone else upped and left years ago. The Anglican Church, with its historic building in tow, is all that is left. In some villages, closing the church indicates to the villagers that the Anglicans have gone too. I've heard first hand reports or parishioners asking a vicar why he is there since they don't have a vicar anymore: The building has closed so they aren't in a parish and don't have a vicar. This is not the case, but perception is very important.
In which case the question then ought to move not to closing the church (by which I mean the community of believers), but whether the current building is sustainable. There are many good reasons for a church to have a building of its own that is distinctive.
Having been part of a church that met in a function room of a Premier Inn, we were hardly noticeable to passers by, so I can appreciate the value of a steeple.
But if a stone building that's several hundred years old is costing the locals dearly to maintain, then it shouldn't be beyond the pale to consider other options. It might be possible to do a sale and leaseback to a heritage organisation or it might be more economical in the long term to build something new.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Quite a good quote, I think, from the Report in questions:
"67. The approach of Christians who do not recognise the importance of place perhaps
has more to do with post-Enlightenment reductionism than biblical faith.12
Evangelical Christians are recognising this.
13 When the importance of place is
recognised, Christianity becomes a ‘powerful source of redemption and repair to the
pathologies of extreme mobility, placelessness and ecological destruction that
characterise modern life.’"
The mysterious "12" and "13" here are references to footnotes - ignore them and just read the text!
Interestingly, this paragraph follows a quote from Brueggemann: "In the [Bible] there is no timeless space, but there is also no spaceless time. There is rather storied place, that is a place which has meaning because of the history lodged there. ... This means that biblical faith cannot be presented simply as an historical movement indifferent to place which could have happened in one setting as well as another, because it is undeniably fixed in this place with this meaning.".
I've got a few issues with this, though it might be worth spinning out into a new thread if this gets too sidetracked.
I've never been convinced by the idea that one set of geographical co-ordinates or one building is more special than another. When God told Moses to take off his shoes because he was on holy ground, it wasn't because that mountain was special; it's because that's where God's presence was.
The tabernacle was a movable tent and was holy because that's where God's presence was. Once it moved on, there's no sign that that particular location was still considered holy (or if one adopts celtic paganism, as some do, a "thin" place).
The temple was fixed, but again it was meant as the dwelling place of God. That's what made it special.
But now we live in a world after the curtain of the temple was torn and after the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. Because of this, the dwelling place of God is no longer a building, a place, but a people. So the sense of "space" isn't lost entirely, but it's been changed rather a lot since we take God with us wherever we go.
When I hear of buildings being consecrated, deconsecrated or being soaked in worship, it all strikes me (yes, I'm post Enlightenment) as not particularly sensible and rather indicative of a low pneumatology.
Buildings are good and practical. Yes.
They can be expressions of worship through art and architecture. Yes.
But as something inherently spiritual? I'm sceptical.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I've never been convinced by the idea that one set of geographical co-ordinates or one building is more special than another. When God told Moses to take off his shoes because he was on holy ground, it wasn't because that mountain was special; it's because that's where God's presence was.
The tabernacle was a movable tent and was holy because that's where God's presence was. Once it moved on, there's no sign that that particular location was still considered holy (or if one adopts celtic paganism, as some do, a "thin" place).
I don't disagree at all. But - for whatever reason - many people just don't seem to function like that. Place so often seems to be intrinsically linked with spirituality.
In our church we proposed closing the gallery. The few people up there said they'd leave rather than sit in the downstairs pews. Obviously memory had something to do with that: their parents and/or friends had said there in the past and doing so brought back remembrances of God.
But, by the way they spoke, you'd have though God was only present for them in those particular seats! They have certainly failed to understand or embrace the pilgrimage model you wrote about.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The problem isn't necessarily the age of the buildings or their perceived inflexibility, but with a Heritage Industry in the UK that has managed to bring about a situation where common sense has vanished and people are left in thrall to ancient buildings which can't function in a way deemed appropriate or suitable for the 21st century (or in some cases even the mid-20th century).
Take the example of heating: in 2015 it is expected that people going to church are able to be in a building where there is a background temperature of at least 18° Celsius (64° Fahrenheit) - in other words, they can sit in the pews without shivering. To produce that kind of temperature in a single-skin building with large areas of (often ill-fitting) glass is extremely difficult and very costly. The solution is obvious and has been around for ages - double-glazing - but is not allowed because it would not be "in-keeping" with the building. But why is it considered inappropriate for old windows to have fixed to their outside plain glass? You'd still be able to appreciate stained glass, which is viewed from inside the building, plus you'd be warmer. Similarly, it should be possible to fit some sort of insulated layer to the roof of most churches, yet this isn't done; and nor do we think about insulating the floors of old churches.
If people - church people and the heritage lobby - are serious about opening churches to become a wider community resource then they must address the issue of allowing churches to make themselves physically welcoming. We shouldn't be having the sort of problems experienced by a local church where they've been battling for more than 10 years to get permission to have an outer door fitted to the porch of their main entrance: the main door at the moment has a 2 inch gap at top and bottom but so far the heritage police have carried the day - ably assisted, of course, by the DAC - and so there is a terrible draught and the floor inside is rotting because it is inundated every time it rains.
We can all make strenuous efforts to be welcoming and inclusive - but if we're trying to persuade young families used to a certain level of comfort to spend time in a cold, frequently damp and draughty building we're on a hiding to nothing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Having been involved in the trials and tribulations of keeping a modern (1980s) Methodist church dry, warm and reasonably vandal-proof, I visited this place a while back and it scared the sh*t out of me!
My experience has been as one of a small-ish and very unskilled local congregation left to flail, make bad decisions and get ripped off repeatedly on building issues, on our own. I guess Anglicans might be better at coordinating all this at a higher (diocese / national?) level, given the magnitude of the task? We could certainly have used some help; our experience has been of contractors (and once, disastrously, lawyers) really getting their noses into the trough. After all that, the function room of the Premier Inn or a school assembly hall appeals to me, notwithstanding the shortcomings.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
My experience has been as one of a small-ish and very unskilled local congregation left to flail, make bad decisions and get ripped off repeatedly on building issues, on our own. I guess Anglicans might be better at coordinating all this at a higher (diocese / national?) level, given the magnitude of the task? We could certainly have used some help; our experience has been of contractors (and once, disastrously, lawyers) really getting their noses into the trough. After all that, the function room of the Premier Inn or a school assembly hall appeals to me, notwithstanding the shortcomings.
Sadly 'taint necessarily so. Even within the fairly small circles I know and move in, I can tell you various stories of disasterous and expensive building work in Anglican churches. A relative of mine in a seaside Anglican church had a faculty (which is the Anglican internal system of planning permission, in case you didn't know) for something with the condition that something else was done. The advice given was bad, the forced changes failed soon after it had been installed costing a large amount of money.
Another church I know is sitting beneath a problem they know will eventually need sorting out, but for which they have no prospect of being able to afford. This particular problem has regularly cost a lot to keep stable (without actually dealing with the underlying problems) which people there say is like throwing money into a deep well.
Another was plagued by expensive rip-offs and bad advice until a retired man with a lot of experience as a foreman joined the congregation and started managing the work himself. The church estimated that single-handedly, the presence of this one individual had made a dramatic difference to the viability of the church.
And, just to show it isn't just Anglicans, I'm aware of a Baptist Union church which regularly has to spend large amounts of money fixing their 19 century roof, and others who were forced into closure by accruing bills they couldn't afford.
I'd say the difference between the Anglicans and almost anyone else is that it is much easier (but rarely "easy") for the baptists etc to leave their building than the parish church.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Been through 2 closures, sales, amalgamations of congregations. Both times, a chunk of people were lost. Some change denominations, some quit entirely. The future can look quite bleak. Less and less.
Yes, I think this is the real problem with church closures, even though the maintenance of buildings is a huge burden.
Research shows that church closures lead to membership losses, both leading up to and after the event. And some of those who transfer to a new church become less active than they were before. I've witnessed this myself, and am an example of it, sadly.
The experience of Methodism in England is sobering. In recent times it's closed more church buildings than any other denomination (yet I know a Methodist minster who still thinks more should go), and it's also lost more members. It's hard not to see an interconnected problem here.
And it's not just the members; congregations risk loosing their penumbra when they disperse. The people who have a family connection with the building but don't attend often, if at all, are even less likely to switch their identity or their precarious sense of belonging to another church. This is a concern because Nonconformist churches often draw new members, or at least new supporters, from this pool of people.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not so sure it's a 'low pneumatology' so much as a different pneumatology.
I think there are inconsistencies in the CofE approach, but I can understand it to a certain extent.
I would like to see more imaginative schemes like an historic parish church in Herefordshire which also houses the village Post Office - to the preservation of both.
The Orthodox of course, put a great store on consecrated buildings and places - as well as objects such as icons and relics. They believe their Liturgy is pneumatic - and also that physical objects can convey and transmit grace - and at the same time they also believe that we, as believers can too - hence they'll kiss one another just as they kiss and venerate icons ... and the Church itself - the Body of believers is also seen as an icon of Christ.
I've struggled with this as someone from a 'low' church background - but have far less of an issue with it than once I had. I do have a sense of 'genius locii' if you like, and do believe there are places that can convey a sense of God's presence in particular ways - at the same time as having a somewhat panentheist sense that 'God is present everywhere and filleth all things.'
Another both/and thing.
That doesn't mean that I regard it like 'spiritual radioactivity' or anything of that kind.
Whatever the case, irrespective of churchmanship or theology, buildings are a major head-ache.
I used to belong to a church that spent years hiring different venues. Eventually, we acquired our own building, a listed 'signature' non-conformist chapel that had been used as offices.
It was never entirely fit for purpose and was a difficult building to work with. Some 15 years after we left, I revisited to see how they were doing on the occasion of their last Sunday in the building. They are now meeting in a hired hall once more and are a fraction of the size they were in their heyday in the '80s and '90s.
Commonsense should prevail, but I also think there's scope for imaginative shared usuage where circumstances allow.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It might be possible to do a sale and leaseback to a heritage organisation or it might be more economical in the long term to build something new.
We've been trying that with a redundant listed church locally where there is no longer a need for the building due to population changes. The legal processes necessary to declare the church closed and to make it available for sale have been gone through. The heritage bodies won't touch it without a sizeable endowment to enable them to keep it in good repair. It isn't convertible for housing unless some solution for sewerage can be found which doesn't disturb the surrounding graveyard. So no one wants it.
[ 22. December 2015, 10:48: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes. Some years ago we considered selling up and moving. The problem was that our building is both listed and in a conservation area. Developers were very interested in the site of the adjacent (non-listed) church hall but not the church itself. And the Council see it as a historic asset to the town, of which too many have already gone.
It would make a good concert venue but there's not much demand for that kind of thing, it would cost a lot to bring up to scratch, and there is enough local provision already. So we came to the conclusion that our building was both unsaleable and undemolishable - in other words, we were stuck.
Members of the congregation have subsequently criticised our decision to stay, and certainly our building costs (even with some grant aid*) are huge. But we can see no other way. (We probably could see our church hall - but that's the bit which is particularly useful to us!)
* We are listed Grade 2. While this poses less onerous restrictions on the way we maintain the building, it also means that grants are much harder to come by.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm fairly convinced that in the near future the only solution will be to walk away, Baptist Trainfan. In some situations this might mean closure of the church to avoid any further recriminations further down the line.
A few years ago we visited a small town in North Scotland that had no fewer than 4 dilapidated chapels on the High Street.
The pressure which assumes that existing churches have the capital and capacity to care for decaying buildings - on behalf of wider society - is misplaced.
I do actually believe that it is inappropriate the other way around, and that churches should not think that they have the right to have society pay for their worship space. But the corollary is that society cannot then force churches to pay to maintain inappropriate buildings.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another church I know is sitting beneath a problem they know will eventually need sorting out, but for which they have no prospect of being able to afford. This particular problem has regularly cost a lot to keep stable (without actually dealing with the underlying problems) which people there say is like throwing money into a deep well.
It doesn't help that grant-awarding bodies like big restoration projects more than they like preventative maintenance.
I'm thinking of a beautiful local church whose fabric has suffered years of neglect because the congregation can't really afford to maintain it properly - until finally it's got so bad that it's on the At Risk register, and so English Heritage have just awarded a mega-grant for the church's restoration. A happy ending, but if the secular powers want to preserve churches for heritage reasons then it would be much cheaper for them to award some kind of maintenance support.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
The too many churches the C of E has are usually those in rural areas, and this is more to do with the change in rural life in the UK than anything else. I am civil parish clerk to a village in Somerset, population c. 300 (if you include the scattered farms round and about).
The village shop has closed as everyone drives to the supermarket in town, or has Ocado deliver. The pub has closed. The school is still there, but only by taking kids from surrounding villages that have lost theirs. Besides, there aren't many children in the village, house prices are such that people move to it in active retirement, and those who can afford to live there that have children bus them off to the local private school. There aren't really any offices or places of employment, apart from the local farms, and most people commute many miles for work. There is only one bus that calls each week, and even the mobile library service has been cut.
The one thing the village does have is its parish church. Usually only 10 people in for a service, although 10 out of 300 is a pretty good hit rate. The church is struggling, the congregation (like much of the village) is elderly, but they are still going for now. Many in the village see themselves as hard up, although looking at the planning applications that cross my desk there always seems to be money for an extension here and a carport there, so there is enough money around to keep the church ticking over if the village has the will to do so.
I see the survival of the parish church, when so many other services have closed and moved to the nearby town, is a sign of the church's strength rather than its weakness. When other things have given up the ghost, the church has doggedly kept going. The fact is, many villages (by which I mean tiny rural settlements of a few hundred) are not the self-sufficient communities that they had to be a hundred years ago. They don't have the numbers to keep the sort of village alive that used to be there, and with most in the village commuting away for work, they also commute off to the towns for everything else, often including church.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
True, but that was partly because there were often multiple buildings (ex-CofS and ex-Free Church) in the same parish post-1929. It took something like 50-60 years before sense prevailed.
OK forget the CofS then. Other denominations are often selling off unsustainable churches. A congregational church (not particularly notable, built to an Anglican style from the 1850s) near here was recently rebuilt as flats. South Wales is full of empty/former chapels.
Tis life. What is so special about the Anglican church that buildings are never allowed to go out of use?
I agree to an extent, but it's not just Anglican churches that are preserved despite the possibility of the land being able to be put to much better use. Whole swathes of streets in Sydney (and from what I understand it is the same in the UK) have heritage orders just because they represent a particular architectural style and it is considered that our built environment is worthy of preservation. IMO Anglican churches are even more worthy of preservation because of the fact that they have been built by past generations and represent a significant community investment. That's not to say that all Anglican churches can or should be preserved at all costs, just that I don't believe we should be too cavalier about demolishing or substantially altering community buildings. Heritage, commerciality and aesthetics need to be balanced.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
In the last ten years of my ministry, I saw the weight of church building maintenance squeeze the life out of three congregations that should have been viable. In each case the members were prepared to think radically, but the diocesan structures acted as a positive obstruction. I regard the wasted effort as a spiritual tragedy.
One of my former congregations now consists of five older pensioners (age 75+) sitting in a building which can hold three hundred. It is a beautiful Grade One listed structure with a rebuilding value of £4.5 million - so you can imagine the insurance premiums. Faced with that cost we asked the diocese which they would prefer us to pay - the insurance, or the Common Fund.
Of course we never got an answer from the diocese - they wanted us to somehow magic up both sums as well as spend £50K on urgent tower repairs, but I got a label of 'not playing the C of E game' by even allowing the question to be asked.
I'm glad I've retired.
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd say the difference between the Anglicans and almost anyone else is that it is much easier (but rarely "easy") for the baptists etc to leave their building than the parish church.
Easier in soem ways but there are often trusts to unpick and unseemly arguments over any cash released from the sale, to be dealt with. [The money often goes to a central fund much to the disgust of local churches soem with valid projcets that need support].
Trust law can be a pain in the rear end when trying to use funds from closed churches to support the mission of Christ.
That doesn'y account either for the "this is my grandmother's church brigade" who can't contemplate closure, ever.
In Northamptonshire in the 1990's two baptist Churches closed only when the last member died.
[ 26. December 2015, 08:18: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
My job has taken me to secluded rural churches, (and Chapels), in S.W England. The life seems to have really gone out of some of them, particularly in the last 10 years. Yet large amounts still appear to be spent in keeping them up to spec. Presumably there is a government agenda to keep many rural churches in a good state of repair despite the high probability of continued congregation decline.
Is the insurance less if a Church building is no longer used for active worship? It could be there is no difference if they're still open to visitors. If this is so then the only place money will be saved is by not heating them.
Alternative use is the only way I see a purpose for old Churches in future decades.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Some churches may have funds in trust solely for the upkeep of the building. It's not totally uncommon for a church to be strapped for cash for the parish share but have an excess of funds to fix the church (but not the hall) roof.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Offeiriad:
In the last ten years of my ministry, I saw the weight of church building maintenance squeeze the life out of three congregations that should have been viable. In each case the members were prepared to think radically, but the diocesan structures acted as a positive obstruction. I regard the wasted effort as a spiritual tragedy.
One of my former congregations now consists of five older pensioners (age 75+) sitting in a building which can hold three hundred. It is a beautiful Grade One listed structure with a rebuilding value of £4.5 million - so you can imagine the insurance premiums. Faced with that cost we asked the diocese which they would prefer us to pay - the insurance, or the Common Fund.
Of course we never got an answer from the diocese - they wanted us to somehow magic up both sums as well as spend £50K on urgent tower repairs, but I got a label of 'not playing the C of E game' by even allowing the question to be asked.
I'm glad I've retired.
That is really sad to hear and as somebody said upthread, it's a form of idolatry. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
... Presumably there is a government agenda to keep many rural churches in a good state of repair despite the high probability of continued congregation decline. ...
I know of no such agenda. If there was one, the government would supply the money to do it with. They don't.
My impression is that government isn't very interested. There's no votes in it.
[ 26. December 2015, 21:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
And yet David Cameron has just sent out a seasonal message referring to Britain as a 'Christian country', and not for the first time....
Government money for church buildings would be welcomed by some, no doubt, but I find the notion somewhat distasteful. I don't think it would liberate congregations to focus on their 'true' mission. At any rate, the Continental European experience doesn't suggest that this would be the case.
Be that as it may, googling suggests that some government funds are being made available for some British churches. The funding appears to be ongoing.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
An interesting model of state funding is Québec's: the Council for Religious Heritage provides a way of directing funds to viable but vulnerable churches/synagogues with an historical significance. There is an arm's-length aspect of it which can be helpful.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Some churches may have funds in trust solely for the upkeep of the building.
The rural Church I attended at the turn of this Century had a leaky tower. Our small congregation mused over some possibilities and discovered a significant sum of money had been stashed over 100 yrs ago. It turned out to be of no use as it had, at the time, been dedicated to bread and prayer book distribution among
the poor should the need arise ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Low and behold, some years after this we had a new vicar who managed to get funds from English heritage/lottery plus various historic building trusts. So the tower was done with money to spare to restore the organ.
I've since moved away but did hear recently the roof still leaked. It really is endless, but then so are many other things the government throws money at.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Here is a solution in the Washington area.
Arlington is just west of Washington DC, and the area in question has been downmarket all my life. In another generation it'll be very expensive.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
