Thread: English Churches Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030538
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
What should the English do with their church buildings? When I visit them I see them mainly as museums, filled with historical artefacts. But one of their strengths is that they are also places of worship. They are real, contemporary, still being used. But as English interest in their church declines below sustainable levels, these buildings no longer serve their purpose as places to meet and worship God. They are expensive to maintain and heat, and inflexible for use on other days of the week. They have become an albatross around the neck of the Church of England. However, when they are abandoned, they fall into private hands and often are converted into residencies and closed to the public. Simon Jenkins suggests in the Guardian that they should be donated to trusts who could look after the care of the history for the community, not just for the Church. This would leave the church free to find more suitable premises, in which to meet for worship. What do shipmates make of this suggestion?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There's no alternative. Public ownership at the council level. They should be given to the nation as stately homes were. I'm totally turned off parish church 'worship' now and can walk to the cathedral for communion. That I will do. I fancy the Wednesday 1.00pm: Eucharist for Peace and Justice and will report back.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Many Chapels round here have been converted into residences.
It saddens me to say this, as I have worked in many beautiful churchyards, but the only realistic option for profiting from unused rural church buildings is to sell them off to private buyers or speculators.
If funds can be found to keep them as museums then all well and good. I doubt if they will attract many more visitors than they do now, and money will still be needed to maintain them so no one will be any better off.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Community centres, not museums. At best. Otherwise. Take the roof off. Remove all recyclables. Including half of the masonry. Preserve the stained glass windows in situ. For as long as the council can be bothered.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Schools? Libraries? The National Trust?
Out of curiosity, do Anglican churches have to be de-consecrated before being put to another use?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Schools? Libraries? The National Trust?
Out of curiosity, do Anglican churches have to be de-consecrated before being put to another use?
They usually are, but not always The Churches Conservation Trust has a number of ex-Anglican churches which continue to be consecrated and have occasional services.
On the whole, though, I think most are deconsecrated and used for other purposes.
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on
:
I love old churches, but I've long felt that an idea like what Simon Jenkins suggests is the only actually-practical way forward.
As a minor note - listing status matters a lot. Grade 1 listed churches are often of limited use for any other purpose (depending on exactly what things inside the church are part of the listing)
(Note for non-English people: A listed building is one that the government has designated as being of historical interest so any changes need permission that you're unlikely to get. Grade II approximately means you can do what you like to the interior but can't alter the exterior. Grade 1 means that interior changes, possibly down to decoration, are also restricted. Most grade 1 listed buildings in England are Anglican churches)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Community centres, not museums. At best. Otherwise. Take the roof off. Remove all recyclables. Including half of the masonry. Preserve the stained glass windows in situ. For as long as the council can be bothered.
From where I am it would take a full day for a fit and active person to walk to the cathedral.
If your prescription was followed here, it would significantly detract from the visual amenity of the centre of the community. Unfortunately, the restrictions placed on a Grade 1 listed building in the middle of a Conservation Area in a National Park would be as inhibiting to other uses as they are to using the building for church purposes.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The main flaw in Simon Jenkins argument is that he still hasn't worked out where the money is to come from. Our (civil) parish council is extremely wary of taking on any kind of financial commitment, and has very limited fund raising powers or capacity. In this respect it is typical of many - especially in rural areas. The idea of endowed trusts is great, but what is the means of endowing them? The National Trust, for example, has refused to take on a closed rural church a few miles from here unless it is given something like £1M to enable it to keep it up.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
There is already Churches Conservation Trust. I think there are others. However, they are small and I do not think up to large scale picking up.
Jengie
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The main flaw in Simon Jenkins argument is that he still hasn't worked out where the money is to come from. Our (civil) parish council is extremely wary of taking on any kind of financial commitment, and has very limited fund raising powers or capacity. In this respect it is typical of many - especially in rural areas. The idea of endowed trusts is great, but what is the means of endowing them? The National Trust, for example, has refused to take on a closed rural church a few miles from here unless it is given something like £1M to enable it to keep it up.
This is a problem, but the alternative seems to be that cash-strapped congregations are forced to continue to throw their money into a deep pit for their crumbling buildings.
I suspect the only thing might be for congregations to walk out (possibly declaring themselves bankrupt?) from the buildings they no longer want. Then, presumably, if the state wants to keep the buildings, they can pay for the upkeep.
[ 11. October 2016, 09:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I think that the 'listing' process is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The trustees or owners of a building aren't part of the listing decision, and it incurs extra costs (sometimes ruinously high) without providing any extra help with those costs.
(The local council have put my immediate locality in a conservation area, and my house on the local list, one stage below formal Grade II listing. No help, just restrictions)
Congregations are left with a building that's fit for a previous century, but not now. They can't retrofit insulation, modern lighting and heating systems, proper roofing, disabled access, toilets, kitchen or other modern amenities without jumping through multiple, expensive hoops and even then, sometimes the answer is simply 'no'.
My answer would be for churches which are of genuine architectural and/or historic importance to be given money for their upkeep. Those that are not, delisted. That would help considerably.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I don't know how many churches fall in this category. My local church (which is a category I building, and being on the Pilgrims Way is kept open all day for visitors) serves a parish of about 550 people and seems to have no problem keeping going. Indeed there is a rather odd parish not far from here that serves a population of six people! It's all that is left of an abandoned village. But that one is kept going by a cunning wheeze involving the benefice it is in, which involves cycling services from elsewhere.
There are churches in towns that have been converted to community centres, and at least one is used for indoor climbing activities. Rural communities may be more difficult if there is already a village hall - another communal site may make both financially unviable.
One big advantage of churches is that they are usually acoustically excellent, and just the place to hold concerts. Many recordings of non-amplified music are actually recorded in deconsecrated churches bought specifically for that purpose. There's only so much you can do by adding presence and reverb to studio recordings. It is surprising just how poor the acoustics of concert halls can be, though of course the big ones can seat more than anywhere short of a cathedral.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the only thing might be for congregations to walk out (possibly declaring themselves bankrupt?) from the buildings they no longer want. Then, presumably, if the state wants to keep the buildings, they can pay for the upkeep.
This is undoubtedly the way to do it. It's amazing to watch when churches want to make changes to their buildings, but the local community suddenly start taking an interest in a building they never use and don't pay for. There are plenty of people with an opinion who need to be offered the opportunity to foot the bill. Whilst the church congregation is paying the bills and using the building for their own ends, the locals are going to leave them to it and only poke their noses in to say "no".
The problem with walking away from the building will be that the congregation is led by a Vicar, who reports to the Bishop. I suspect she would be in very hot water indeed if she supported such a course of action.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
The problem with walking away from the building will be that the congregation is led by a Vicar, who reports to the Bishop. I suspect she would be in very hot water indeed if she supported such a course of action.
Well I guess it depends exactly how it is done. In South Wales, Anglican churches have been regularly sold off, and I suspect that whilst "walking away" hasn't yet been deemed necessary, for some buildings which are unsafe, the diocese might support such a course of action if a buyer is not found.
It is quite hard to believe that a diocese could or would force a local congregation to continue with building costs that it is obvious they can't afford.
[ 11. October 2016, 10:19: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Schools? Libraries? The National Trust?
Out of curiosity, do Anglican churches have to be de-consecrated before being put to another use?
Yes, they do
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Yes, they do
Nope they don't. There are a number of churches held by the Churches Conservation Trust which remain consecrated but are also used for other purposes. Indeed, those churches can only be used for irregular services.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In South Wales, Anglican churches have been regularly sold off, and I suspect that whilst "walking away" hasn't yet been deemed necessary, for some buildings which are unsafe, the diocese might support such a course of action if a buyer is not found.
I don't know if it makes any difference to this - but the Church in Wales is dis-Established.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't know if it makes any difference to this - but the Church in Wales is dis-Established.
I don't know if Establishment makes any difference - there are redundant churches for sale in England.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
All well and good in theory but in reality not such a clever idea.
Take the case of the church where I play: It is the only building in the large rural parish capable of holding more than 80 people seated and the only once able to hold more than 50 which is anywhere near a bus route: in a village with a population of c950 those are important considerations. Add into that mix that the church hall (one of the 2 that can hold 50+) is on leasehold land and the leaseholder (the Church Commissioners) has intimated that they are minded not to renew the lease when it comes up for renewal in 5 years' time.
What holds us back in developing the church is that we are Grade I listed, and the local Conservation Officer is decidedly anti-church - so far our attempts to get a loo built have taken 8 years - and the Church's own DAC also seem hell-bent on denying that we need to provide not only a loo but somewhere to wash up coffee mugs.
Despite all that, the church is still able to provide the only focus in a parish where housing is spread over a wide area and we provide the parish with concerts, a toddler group, amateur dramatics, space for car boot sales, the annual Fruit & Veg show, a centre for the study of local wildlife, etc, etc, etc.
To preserve the buildings the Church - and we're really talking CofE here - needs to make all-comers welcome and feel they have a stake in the place, whether or not they have any belief in the creed espoused by those who worship there: what many of our local non-worshippers comment on is that we, as a worshipping community, don't "push religion down our throats" (direct quote from someone at the annual Village Harvest Thanksgiving).
The current focus on mission will do precisely nothing to help rural churches in particular since it is almost entirely based on putting bums in pews at services while ignoring the fact that things like the CofE's attitude on things like same-sex relationships, divorce, etc, that keeps people out of our buildings and away from our services.
[ 11. October 2016, 10:57: Message edited by: L'organist ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The future of CofE church buildings is presumably quite dependent on local factors. Some are in the ideal context to be multi-purpose community centres; some are in suburban areas with a high growth potential (if evangelism takes place); other (sub)urban and town churches can be sold and converted into housing.
Some could no doubt become museums or restaurants, etc., but only in a couple of cities would potential buyers have enough money for both expensive repair and maintenance, and also have any likelihood of turning a profit with this kind of venture.
It'll be interesting to see if the CofE will begin to sell considerable numbers of buildings for use in non-Christian worship. Nonconformists in many towns and cities have had to get used to this occurrence.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What is it about suburbs that gives CoE churches high growth potential with evangelism? What's the model for that? Where is it incontrovertibly working?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I was referring to this report, p. 10. It describes the growth potential of 'middle class suburbs'.
(The same page also notes that urban churches in cities with a large percentage of Christian immigrants may also be able work towards and benefit from church growth. I think this is a more complex environment, though.)
But note that church growth wasn't the focus of my post; I know full well that growth is difficult for the average church to achieve.
[ 11. October 2016, 19:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
Norwich has a lot of good examples of church buildings being used for other things - and a lot of the churches are medieval. One is a store for Boy Scout and Girl Guide equipment. Another is an antique centre, with many different units. Another is an arts centre. I think one has sports equipment, and there was talk of one church becoming a motorcycle museum, though I don't know what happened there.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed not SvitlanaV2, but the church continues to relentlessly grow negatively at over 1% a year regardless of its potential - whatever that is - with evangelism - whatever that is.
Near the turn of the century it will be a third of that.
If the buildings can't be used as community resources or turned in to mosques, they must be demolished.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, yes, we all know that large numbers of churches are declining. That's why I suggested that some church buildings be converted into houses, community centres, mosques, restaurants, etc.
Some will be demolished too, although that won't happen to the listed ones, will it? So some other use will have to be found for them.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
To divert attention to Scotland for a moment, Iona Abbey is a busy working church with worship services twice a day, but its care and maintenance are far beyond the resources of the Iona Community or the former Cathedral Trustees. A few years ago it was handed over to Historic Scotland, who are now responsible for the structure, while the Community continues to use it as before. The most visible difference is that the heavy tourist traffic has led to barriers to entry, so now you have to pay to get in, which to some of us, who look on it as a church, is exceeding objectionable unless you are there for a Community programme. However, that is the price of keeping up the building.
Our own church, 3,000 miles from Iona, is something of a local landmark, not bad looking for Victorian Gothic, a well equipped concert venue and popular for destination weddings. By most standards the congregation is healthy, but the building is slowly slipping away from us. I made the suggestion, based on the Iona model, that we get around this by giving it to the city as a community resource and using what we need of it when we need it. So far, this has not been a popular idea.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Our own church, 3,000 miles from Iona, is something of a local landmark, not bad looking for Victorian Gothic, a well equipped concert venue and popular for destination weddings. By most standards the congregation is healthy, but the building is slowly slipping away from us. I made the suggestion, based on the Iona model, that we get around this by giving it to the city as a community resource and using what we need of it when we need it. So far, this has not been a popular idea.
As a former church steward I advise you not to let this situation drift until the money actually runs out, at which point you'll just have to sell a crumbling building to the highest bidder, or else abandon it (depending on what your denomination deems to be acceptable).
However, if 'the community' can't afford to buy the building then can they even afford to maintain it? Because if they can't afford to maintain it then you won't be using it as a church for very long, even if they are willing to take it over.
On a slightly different point, I think congregations these days should be far more serious about developing the letting potential of their buildings, because expecting a declining membership to dig deeper and deeper to pay all the bills just doesn't make much sense. This is particularly urgent for Nonconformist churches, but I've seen some interesting, high quality CofE projects that involve shared use of church land, e.g. incorporating a medical centre, shopping mall or school extension as a part of the church structure.
[ 11. October 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
We would love to encourage more lettings but:
- our car parking is very limited and local car parks are expensive;
- our "lettable" accommodation isn't very suitable and we'd need to spend vast sums of money into making it so;
- most times when people want to hire are when we need the rooms ourselves;
- we are in competition with other community buildings nearby;
- many hirers are unwilling to pay realistic rates which cover the building's overheads such as maintenance, caretaking, insurance etc. They just want to pay a "marginal" rate to cover heating, lighting and a little bit more.
In my last church much of the premises were hired out to a private school during the week. This paid the bills but the cost in wear and tear was great as they were poor tenants. Our own use was severely restricted and the local community ended up thinking that we were a school which hired out its hall to a church on Sunday (the building was fairly modern and didn't look "churchy").
By the way, has anyone mentioned "One Church, one hundred uses"?
[ 11. October 2016, 21:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Edited for sense!
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Indeed not SvitlanaV2, but the church continues to relentlessly grow negatively at over 1% a year regardless of its potential - whatever that is - with evangelism - whatever that is.
Near the turn of the century it will be a third of [that.] what it is now, 760,000.
If the buildings can't be used as community resources or turned in to mosques, they must be demolished.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Baptist Trainfan
Yes, churches obviously have to consider what's suitable for them. And the PR challenges should ideally be part of the planning.
Churches clearly need more professional advice on these matters, so that link is very useful.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
wondering, too,
When churches will fall completely out of use
What we shall turn them into, if we shall keep
A few cathedrals chronically on show,
Their parchment, plate and pyx in locked cases,
And let the rest rent-free to rain and sheep.
Shall we avoid them as unlucky places?
from Philip Larkin's Church Going
[ 12. October 2016, 01:28: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And a beautiful, ancient country church, half-a-mil from the centre of a village (pop. 269) which already possesses a somewhat decrepit but well-loved Village Hall, along a narrow lane with no parking ... what practical secular use can ever be found for that?
If "the nation" wants to preserve them as architectural heritage, that's fine - but "the nation" must then pay!
[ 12. October 2016, 08:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
Surely with increasing population and demand on natural resources, we are going to need more community spaces rather than fewer? It seems to me that there are a number of activities which are much more efficient and sustainable done on a community basis than in individual households e.g. cooking and eating.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Oh, how sick and tired I am of the Jeremiahs who constantly (and gleefully) proclaim the pending death of the C of E! There are literally thousands of parish churches up and down the country - both urban and rural - busily and faithfully proclaiming the Gospel and celebrating the Sacraments, as Our Lord commanded. Hundreds of them have re-invented themselves to some degree or other in order to be more active and available within their communities.
Cells of Our Lady of Walsingham frequently pray, not for revival, but for the conversion of England. When that day occurs, we are going to need all the churches we have!
Meanwhile, of course, it may from time to time be necessary to lay churches aside, owing to demographic changes or whatever. That's OK, but circumstances may well alter. In this fair city, an Anglican church closed nearly 40 years ago, following the depopulation of its parish, has recently been brought back into use as a place of worship by an African Pentecostal denomination, and the same applies to two other former C of E churches in the area, albeit after much shorter periods of disuse.
Rural churches are perhaps more problematical, as Baptist Trainfan points out, but IIRC there is a scheme for converting them into rentable holiday accommodation, by means of inserting 'pods' into the overall shell of the building, thus minimising disturbance to the historical fabric. Sorry, I can't offhand remember where I read of this, so can't provide a link.
Another suitable use for smaller rural churches and chapels is conversion to a house. A much-Victorianised little church in a hamlet near here has been so treated, and looks much as it did when still in use for worship, even to the extent of retaining some tombstones in the erstwhile graveyard.
Ian J.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
there is a scheme for converting them into rentable holiday accommodation, by means of inserting 'pods' into the overall shell of the building, thus minimising disturbance to the historical fabric.
What a splendid idea! The C of E could then retain ownership, generate an income and bring them back into use when the awakening finally materialises.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
we are going to need all the churches we have!
While this is a perfectly valid point, all the churches are no longer where all the people are, nor are they cheap or easy to maintain, nor are they fit for purpose in terms of accessibility.
We would still need some mechanism for not saddling a church community with a building that sucked all the resources and time of that community, that could be reasonably spent elsewhere.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If I may.
Here's your kill or cure emetic soporific Bishop's Finger.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hmm. Not too sure about 'reverse mission', Martin, though I think I see your point.
The African Pentecostal churches I've mentioned are welcome and colourful additions to the local Christian scene (especially the Celestians*!), but I'm not sure to what extent they engage with the areas in which they stand. ISTM that they tend to be eclectic congregations, although perhaps (in a densely-populated urban setting) none the worse for that.
And let's not forget that new churches are being built, or have been built in recent years, in many parts of the country, whether to replace outmoded originals or to serve new housing areas. This applies as much to the 'doomed' C of E as to other denominations.
Ian J.
*localese for The Celestial Church of Christ
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Gentleman and fine beer that you are, reverse mission has no chance. Apart from in the same ethnic groups. And even then. Nigerian 'missionaries' - and I've worked with a self-styled one even in sunny Leicester - aren't going to cut it with the local poor.
NOTHING can. NOTHING ever will again. But joining them. With strong, inclusive, postmodern, benevolence. Not 'fresh expressions' of piety and magic. Although they have to be embraced to be deconstructed.
Islam wins the log haul regardless.
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on
:
Claims that the church is failing in rural areas are missing the point, which is that rural community life in tiny villages is struggling. I was involved in a civic Parish Council in Somerset covering two villages, one with 350 people, one with just 60. Both villages had parish churches, although the larger one only had attendance of around 8 people a week and the smaller only held 4 services a year. Both churches are otherwise open all year round for people to visit.
But in both these villages there are next to no other community facilities remaining. The bus no longer stops, the primary school has been amalgated with nearby villages, the pub went years ago, and the village shop has closed, replaced by Ocado deliveries. One village still has its village hall, but apart from the churches there really isn't much left. So the churches, struggling as they are, are the most stubbornly persistent institutions in village life.
Looking at the Parish Council minutes from 60 years ago it is clear that most people in the village worked in it and lived the different facets of their life in it. Today most villagers commute to the nearby town for work and leisure, or absorb themselves online, the village being a cosy haven to rest and have downtime. And I won't mention the number of properties that are now second homes or holiday cottages.
The problem is that there is no local body who could take on the management of these churches if it was needed. The Parish Council has an annual income of around £4000, all of which is accounted for, so would not be able to take the buildings on behalf of the local community. They will only survive for public use if they have a purpose, with an active congregation needing to use the building for worship. If they can afford to pay the bills, even if it's only three old ladies and a dog, then let them get on with it. If they can't, find some way to sell it off or just let it crumble. There's no point trying to keep a building going if it has no purpose and there's no money or will to make it work. The local church can meet in each other's houses, or break centuries of local taboo and go to the church in the next village.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Golden Journey To Samarkand
I
We who with songs beguile your pilgrimage
And swear that Beauty lives though lilies die,
We Poets of the proud old lineage
Who sing to find your hearts, we know not why, -
What shall we tell you? Tales, marvellous tales
Of ships and stars and isles where good men rest,
Where nevermore the rose of sunset pales,
And winds and shadows fall towards the West:
And there the world's first huge white-bearded kings
In dim glades sleeping, murmur in their sleep,
And closer round their breasts the ivy clings,
Cutting its pathway slow and red and deep.
II
And how beguile you? Death has no repose
Warmer and deeper than the Orient sand
Which hides the beauty and bright faith of those
Who make the Golden Journey to Samarkand.
And now they wait and whiten peaceably,
Those conquerors, those poets, those so fair:
They know time comes, not only you and I,
But the whole world shall whiten, here or there;
When those long caravans that cross the plain
With dauntless feet and sound of silver bells
Put forth no more for glory or for gain,
Take no more solace from the palm-girt wells.
When the great markets by the sea shut fast
All that calm Sunday that goes on and on:
When even lovers find their peace at last,
And Earth is but a star, that once had shone.
James Elroy Flecker
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hmm again - not quite sure where (or how, or why) we're journeying with Mr. Flecker...!
Uriel makes a very important and valid point re rural life - the hamlet I mentioned, where the church is now a house, also once had a school, post office, pub, etc. All gone now, converted into housing. At least in this case the main road/bus stop/town shops are not that far away, and the neighbouring villages on either side still have working Anglican churches.
Ian J.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh, how sick and tired I am of the Jeremiahs who constantly (and gleefully) proclaim the pending death of the C of E! There are literally thousands of parish churches up and down the country - both urban and rural - busily and faithfully proclaiming the Gospel and celebrating the Sacraments, as Our Lord commanded. Hundreds of them have re-invented themselves to some degree or other in order to be more active and available within their communities.
I don't think the link in the OP was a gleeful proclamation of 'the pending death of the CofE'. It was primarily about the oversupply of church buildings, and how to care for the buildings with tiny or no congregations.
Functioning CofE churches around the country are indeed places where God is worshipped. Some are well-attended, or are considered to be worth considerable ongoing financial support from the wider denomination even if they're not. But it would be foolish to deny that many CofE (and other) congregations are either small and/or ageing, and that the ancient buildings they're using therefore face a precarious future. As you yourself agree, there are various uses to which these buildings can be put.
(With regard to African Pentecostals and 'reverse mission', many churches probably are rather self-absorbed; but some African pastors and congregations are indeed thinking about this issue, especially those that are at the stage of planting daughter churches. Books and articles about urban mission are beginning to outline the challenges they face in grappling with 'ethnic boundaries'.)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Do you need me to highlight the most resonant sections Ian? It was inspired by what Uriel said. Uriel describes the long Sunday - see the symbolism I grabbed there? - that goes on and on, fading to dull ash.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Point taken - thanks, Martin.
Have a beer on me!
Ian J.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Just stop being so bloody agreeable would you!
I don't want to be so sodding RIGHT all the time!!
I want HOPE!!!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
But I am an agreeable sort of chap (and the beer will make you feel better).
Seriously, though, surely the points made above by myself and others re living, working churches show that there is at least some hope?
Ian J.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And SvitlanaV2, they can overcome the 'ethnic boundaries' if they incarnate.
NOTHING else will EVER work.
I went to a fantastic Christian rehab centre in Luton about 7 years ago. It worked because you weren't allowed to work there unless you were a clean class A addict or dry alcoholic. And you weren't allowed to stay if you did not submit yourself to complete, no second chance, one strike and you're out, constant, confessional, confrontational scrutiny.
All were equal.
A car load of us went down from St. Giles Northampton for a friend's graduation.
The surprise came when we ALL had to confess.
That was all so powerful.
One poor lady in our group asked if demons were to blame.
Bless.
We're all to blame unless we get stuck in and sort it.
Unless we worship in truth.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All were equal.
The challenges I alluded to above might be a little different, though.
I don't know if African Pentecostals see themselves as socially superior to the white working classes among whom they might be living or ministering. Indeed, the problem could well be the other way round; the local white inhabitants might well find it socially and racially unnatural or even demeaning to submit themselves to the ministrations of a black African church leadership. History and popular perception would agree with them.
Being incarnational in this context is new terrain that's fraught with paradoxes. We expect a socially and racially privileged elite to 'climb down' to share with those below them, but what if the evangelising is being done by a group that's already towards the bottom of the pile? And if holding on to your culture is a way to redeem what the colonisers despised, how do you then dispose of it in order to evangelise among the great-grandchildren of your colonisers??
I hope these questions make some sense to you. My point is that urban mission is complex these days, and likely to become more so. It's far more than just a case of rich meeting poor.
[ 13. October 2016, 23:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
[Uriel
Are the churches in the two villages you refer to in your post above of any historical importance or value? It would be interesting too to know how many of the villagers, including those who are part-time, still have strong or just a nominal belief in God.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
As an atheist, I find the question just as much of a puzzle to answer as it is for believers, I think. On the one hand, cathedrals, Minsters and old churches dating back to mediaeval times have such a central position in history, tradition and culture that it would be quite wrong not to preserve them; they are testimony to the skills of the designers and builders and a joy to see, as well as evidence of their beliefs.
On the other hand, more people today, considering with great interest and understanding the scientific and technical pros and cons of sending people to Mars, while at the same time realising that it will almost certainly happen, are simply moving away fromn the idea that there might be a God or a heaven somewhere out there and the idea of worshipping and praying in a building simply isn’t a part of their lives.
In the end, there will, I suppose, be a compromise and buildings that can be converted into useful places will be, and others will be pulled down and something more currently useful will be put in their places.
The whole question of how much all this would cost and who would pay is perhaps something for the next generation to sort out! .
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Golden Journey To Samarkand
I
We who with songs beguile your pilgrimage
And swear that Beauty lives though lilies die,
We Poets of the proud old lineage
Who sing to find your hearts, we know not why, -
What shall we tell you? Tales, marvellous tales
Of ships and stars and isles where good men rest,
Where nevermore the rose of sunset pales,
And winds and shadows fall towards the West:
And there the world's first huge white-bearded kings
In dim glades sleeping, murmur in their sleep,
And closer round their breasts the ivy clings,
Cutting its pathway slow and red and deep.
James Elroy Flecker
Good thing you omitted the last stanza.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
All well and good in theory but in reality not such a clever idea.
Take the case of the church where I play: It is the only building in the large rural parish capable of holding more than 80 people seated and the only once able to hold more than 50 which is anywhere near a bus route: in a village with a population of c950 those are important considerations. Add into that mix that the church hall (one of the 2 that can hold 50+) is on leasehold land and the leaseholder (the Church Commissioners) has intimated that they are minded not to renew the lease when it comes up for renewal in 5 years' time.
Despite all that, the church is still able to provide the only focus in a parish where housing is spread over a wide area and we provide the parish with concerts, a toddler group, amateur dramatics, space for car boot sales, the annual Fruit & Veg show, a centre for the study of local wildlife, etc, etc, etc.
To preserve the buildings the Church - and we're really talking CofE here - needs to make all-comers welcome and feel they have a stake in the place, whether or not , etc, that keeps people out of our buildings and away from our services.
What you're describing is a community facility - one of which the community makes good use - but you've not really described a place of worship. Given that's the use you ascribe to it, why should not the community pay for it, as they do here?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On the other hand, more people today, considering with great interest and understanding the scientific and technical pros and cons of sending people to Mars, while at the same time realising that it will almost certainly happen, are simply moving away fromn the idea that there might be a God or a heaven somewhere out there and the idea of worshipping and praying in a building simply isn’t a part of their lives.
The beauty of many religious buildings goes beyond their function. Architecture is visual music, one does not need to believe what it says to appreciate its beauty.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The beauty of many religious buildings goes beyond their function. Architecture is visual music, one does not need to believe what it says to appreciate its beauty.
totally agree.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Golden Journey To Samarkand
I
We who with songs beguile your pilgrimage
And swear that Beauty lives though lilies die,
We Poets of the proud old lineage
Who sing to find your hearts, we know not why, -
What shall we tell you? Tales, marvellous tales
Of ships and stars and isles where good men rest,
Where nevermore the rose of sunset pales,
And winds and shadows fall towards the West:
And there the world's first huge white-bearded kings
In dim glades sleeping, murmur in their sleep,
And closer round their breasts the ivy clings,
Cutting its pathway slow and red and deep.
James Elroy Flecker
Good thing you omitted the last stanza.
No, you did.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All were equal.
The challenges I alluded to above might be a little different, though.
I don't know if African Pentecostals see themselves as socially superior to the white working classes among whom they might be living or ministering. Indeed, the problem could well be the other way round; the local white inhabitants might well find it socially and racially unnatural or even demeaning to submit themselves to the ministrations of a black African church leadership. History and popular perception would agree with them.
Being incarnational in this context is new terrain that's fraught with paradoxes. We expect a socially and racially privileged elite to 'climb down' to share with those below them, but what if the evangelising is being done by a group that's already towards the bottom of the pile? And if holding on to your culture is a way to redeem what the colonisers despised, how do you then dispose of it in order to evangelise among the great-grandchildren of your colonisers??
I hope these questions make some sense to you. My point is that urban mission is complex these days, and likely to become more so. It's far more than just a case of rich meeting poor.
It's everything but that. Therefore nothing.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
On the other hand, more people today, considering with great interest and understanding the scientific and technical pros and cons of sending people to Mars, while at the same time realising that it will almost certainly happen, are simply moving away fromn the idea that there might be a God or a heaven somewhere out there and the idea of worshipping and praying in a building simply isn’t a part of their lives.
First, I constantly question my faith, but I can honestly say that the prospect of travel to Mars has never played a major role in my doubts.
I am intrigued to think that anyone might find interplanetary gadding about incompatible with the Nicene Creed.
Secondly, there is no necessary connection whatsoever between praying and worshipping on the one hand, and doing so in a building on the other.
Christians tend to use buildings for their convenience.
Some are beautiful, some merely functional, and some downright ugly, but there is not a single verse in the NT endorsing the concepts of sacred sites, holy ground or consecrated edifices.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
What is interesting is that some people find that a beautiful building enhance or even enables their worship; while, for others, the surroundings are irrelevant. So, at one end of the spectrum, there are people who almost "cannot" worship except in a soaring Gothic cathedral and, at the other end, there are those who are happy to worship in a utilitarian industrial unit.
How much this is true to tradition, sentimental attachment to certain places, or personality type, I do not know.
In my sister's former tiny village, the ancient church is remote and lies in the middle of a field. Sunday attendance was around the half-dozen mark. English Heritage gave them a large restoration grant which meant that, for six months or so, the church was closed and the congregation met in the Village Hall which is more conveniently placed. Once a month there was a family service at which attendance could get up to 20-25.
When the building work was finished, the faithful debated what they should do. For a short while the family service in the Hall continued, but the general consensus was that they needed to return to the "proper church". Congregations immediately returned to their former levels.
The villagers had seemed to like the "new" approach yet it seems that "building", "tradition" and "doing things properly" were more important than "mission" for the core congregation. There was another thing, too: this village is still markedly feudal in ethos and the rank-and-file villagers still associate the Church with the "squirearchy" and as "not being a place for the likes of us". Meeting in the Hall broke that barrier down (except, I guess, for Festival services and occasional offices
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Christians tend to use buildings for their convenience.
Yes, agreed; no argument there. The subject of this thread is going to remain undecided for a very long time I think.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
If you count less than two generations as a very long time. We'll all be on Mars by then obviously.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If you count less than two generations as a very long time. We'll all be on Mars by then obviously.
Ah, well, I shall be long dead and gone by then, missing everything new and interesting! And of course, being an atheist, I know I shall not have 'passed on' to something else!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wairms!
My youngest wants to have me turned in to cat litter.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Gee D (in response to my earlier post) quote:
What you're describing is a community facility - one of which the community makes good use - but you've not really described a place of worship. Given that's the use you ascribe to it, why should not the community pay for it, as they do here?
Yes, I was describing a "community facility" - but isn't that what a parish church should be: a place for the whole parish. So yes, our church is definitely a "community facility" but it is equally a place for worship (surely not of worship, which implies that it is the building itself that is worshipped?) and is used for public services 7 days a week.
And the community does pay for it because we raise not only the money to pay for heating, lighting, etc, etc, etc, but also the money for our priest who is 'house-for-duty'. In fact the parish is a net contributor to diocesan funds because we get little, if anything, from central funds.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In my sister's former tiny village, the ancient church is remote and lies in the middle of a field. Sunday attendance was around the half-dozen mark. English Heritage gave them a large restoration grant which meant that, for six months or so, the church was closed and the congregation met in the Village Hall which is more conveniently placed. Once a month there was a family service at which attendance could get up to 20-25.
When the building work was finished, the faithful debated what they should do. For a short while the family service in the Hall continued, but the general consensus was that they needed to return to the "proper church". Congregations immediately returned to their former levels.
That's a very interesting story, and confirms what some radical proponents of alternative worship say about the downside of worship in 'traditional' spaces. The kinds of spaces we worship in clearly influence church culture.
One hopes that someone in this village has seen a need for developing a new, if tiny congregation in a setting outside the beautifully renovated church building.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I have heard similar accounts to BT's above.
Traditional English Churches are seen as foreboding places tied up with the past. Also having them surrounded with tombstones and graves, while poignant in one way, could easily be a morose and morbid turnoff to the majority these days.
One of are local Churches used to invite the nearby primary school children for a guided tour. When it came to question and answer time the most common question from perceptive young minds was, "Where are the dungeons?"
With this vibe coming off a place it is no wonder people are not 'Glad when they said-- "Let us go to the House of the Lord".
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My wife, when still a teacher, heard two children discussing their experience of church. One was obviously a regular attender and enjoyed it; the response of the other was, "I thought only dead people went to church" - i.e. for her, churches were only associated with funerals.
Referring to my story above, my sister has left the village so I don't know how things are going. I do know that the Vicar who suggested the changes left soon after under a bit of a cloud (I can't now remember why), and since then there has been a restructuring of the Benefices in the wider area with another Vicar.
The Parish magazine suggests that there are now two services at the church per month: 1st Sunday 11am Family Service; 3rd Sunday 8am BCP Eucharist. How well they are attended, and by whom, I have no idea. The Village Hall services - which used to be called "DCD" ("Do Church Different" - a very appropriate epithet for Norfolk) seem to have ceased.
[ 15. October 2016, 08:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
L'organist Perhaps so - but I suspect that inherent in what you say is that the C of E is established and that there are consequences flowing from that. What your post does not deal with is the question of whether the community as a community, whether or not members of the parish, should be paying for the upkeep on an historic building that it values. It does not seem from your post that the wider community is making adequate payment towards this upkeep.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I suspect that, in some places, any suggestion of "community" use, whether for Keep Fit a weekly Post Office, or a Young Peoples' Project, will be shouted down as "irreverent" and "inappropriate" by members of the same community (who never darken the church's doors for worship)!
@GeeD: to what extent should the cost of a historic church's upkeep be paid by the local community (which may be tiny and poor) or by the State as a whole? It's not the fault of Little-Snoring-by-the Muckheap (pop. 26) that it has a unique but rotting medieval gem on its doorstep! These buildings are surely of national significance.
[ 15. October 2016, 09:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Why has nobody mentioned this? A friend told me he'd heard a testimony from a vicar involved at New Wine, this lunchtime.
I'll be reading up.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0