Ship of Fools: To build or not to build

Thread: To build or not to build 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=027732

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

This comes out of the revivalism/Cwmbran thread.

It's been suggested that churches meeting informally in Starbucks, in pubs or homes and social clubs etc are the 'way forward.'

What are the opportunities and pitfalls confronting such initiatives. How sustainable could they be in the longer term?

Buildings pose problems, of course - maintenance, costs etc. Cathedrals seem to be doing well, though, despite all of that.

This last week I met a vicar of an historic church in a touristy town whose church gains a significant annual income by charging people to climb the tower and look at the view.

Equally, there are historic buildings that are unsustainable.

What are the pros and cons of abandoning buildings and taking to the pubs, clubs and coffee bars?

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

If you were meeting during their normal business hours, I imagine they could be a bit unhappy with the hymn singing and chap standing up going '...and lastly and sixty-fourthly brethern...'

One solution which seems to be widespread is, rather than invading secular spaces, to be a space which is available to the community for other purposes - this time last week I was at a performance of Fallen Fairies in a modern church building in suburban Edinburgh. I was interested to note the flexible seating, ceiling-mounted lighting rig, stage, wings and convenient kitchen. It was clearly a space which had been designed for multi-functionality.

But I can see that for some this would be a capitulation to The World.

[ 16. August 2014, 19:59: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I was part of a church that met in a recreation center . We kept putting off building
and eventually the church collapsed . So I believe a church should be in its own facility. There are ways to maximize useage if you are in a big city , space rentals , places for religous education, community
outreach, food/clothing bank in addition to having a dedicated worship space.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What are the pros and cons of abandoning buildings and taking to the pubs, clubs and coffee bars?

What a ghastly idea. People should feel free to be able to have their coffee in peace without being preached at, being asked to be quiet because there's a service on, expected to join in singing hymns, or unable to get their coffee and cake because the place is suddenly filling up with a bunch of people who aren't in a coffee house for that purpose, aren't even interested in it but have taken up all the best seats.

As for the idea of holding a service in a pub, that runs the pretty obvious risk of drunks barging in and heckling, then being annoyed at being told to stop it and some fairly unholy exchanges being flung around.

You might just as well decide to take the pub or coffee house to the church instead and have people arrive to sit in the pews gossiping over a pint or cappucino while the vicar tries to hold a service.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Rent.

In my experience, churches that buy real estate attract all the wrong kinds of interest. Denominations seek to expand their power base by owning the property even when it's local members that have paid for it. And so on and so on.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What are the pros and cons of abandoning buildings and taking to the pubs, clubs and coffee bars?
What a ghastly idea. People should feel free to be able to have their coffee in peace without being preached at, being asked to be quiet because there's a service on, expected to join in singing hymns, or unable to get their coffee and cake because the place is suddenly filling up with a bunch of people who aren't in a coffee house for that purpose, aren't even interested in it but have taken up all the best seats.

I rather assumed that the point was to meet in a meeting room at a coffee house or pub, rather than having evensong at the main bar.

I agree that trying to hold a worship service in the middle of a bunch of people who are trying to do something else is a non-starter. There's a difference between in the public view and in the public's way.

I'm not sure that I see a huge difference between a multi-function room owned by the church, used for worship on Sundays, and for bridge, bingo, coffee-mornings and playgroups during the week, and a hall owned by someone else hired for various secular purposes in the week, and hired by the church on Sundays.

A space set aside for worship is one thing, but if the room is used for many different things, I can't see how it matters who owns it.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I rather assumed that the point was to meet in a meeting room at a coffee house or pub, rather than having evensong at the main bar.

I've never seen a coffee house that had a separate meeting room which was available for rent.

In any case, if you rent a meeting room, the area won't be consecrated, it'll be a secular area that you've borrowed. Also, one of the good things about a church is that it's often decorated with a variety of religious items that should (in theory) incline the mind towards contemplation of spiritual matters. You won't get that in a pub's back room, and having a gathering there sounds pretty much like going back to those old days a few centuries ago of hiding from public view and surreptitiously holding services quietly so as not to attract unwanted attention.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have seen:

a café church set up in the local Costa Coffee - a sort of monthly talk and discussion and "different way" of "being church" - it had about 20 attendees from across the churches in town, met out of the normal opening times and didn't run for more than the agreed sample sessions (4/5?);
Beer and Bible in one of the local pubs, intended to be a public bible group discussing the Acts with the possibility that others could join in from the bar and see Christians at work in the community. It was established as part of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible a few years ago. In practice, the group met in a private room at the pub and it was no different to a bible study group at someone's home, with an added gimmick and is no longer running;
Applecart story telling in a pub - again in a room above a pub almost as a private group, and I reckoned everyone else there had been to their own churches earlier in the day. And that no longer runs either, although Applecart do still exist.

However, Holy Joes started off in a pub, although that led Dave Tomlinson to ordination in the CofE and Holy Joes is no more.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm inclined to agree with Curiosity Killed ... these things are gimmicks at worst or well meaning experiments at best.

@Ariel - I don't think those who advocate meeting in Starbucks or in pubs or clubs etc envisage holding traditional services with hymns and sermons etc - nor happy-clappy style services either.

My understanding of it is that they see themselves as gathering unobtrusively over coffee to chat and discuss their own spiritual progress etc ...

There's nothing to stop them doing that anyway and attending more 'conventional' forms of church at the same time. So I'm not convinced what they intend to gain.

South Coast Kevin is a big advocate of this kind of approach so perhaps he can explain.

I remember a quite 'High Church' vicar in a northern town starting a bit of a stir by beginning to hold services in the pub across the road as well as in his church. I'm not sure that initiative lasted very long nor am I sure what it achieved.

People in that town simply rolled their eyes when they heard of it and various non-churchgoers I knew felt that it was somewhat sacrilegious and irreverent ...

My gut feel is that this sort of thing would work reasonably well for a short while with a bunch of mates ... but longer term is unsustainable.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Ariel;

quote:
In any case, if you rent a meeting room, the area won't be consecrated, it'll be a secular area that you've borrowed.

Why does the church's meeting place need to be 'consecrated'? It is the church itself, the people, who are consecrated.

Where the church is persecuted, a fixed meeting place can be a problem. 17thC Baptist practice was often to meet flexibly as 'housegroups' which would then get together once a month or so in, say, a sympathetic tavern.

Even where not persecuted, large permanent buildings can be problematic....

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think it's both/and and not either/or. [Big Grin]

By observation, churches which start by meeting in school buildings or village halls soon start fundraising so that they have premises of their own. Christians need to worship God by singing his praises and praying together.

For outreach to those in the community who are not yet Christians ready to pray or sing together, informal meetings in cafe's or bars are one way of connecting, as are knitting circles, dance or exercise or film or book groups, etc.

There are of course cross-overs. Cafe church may include prayer, praise and thanksgiving. There are outdoor church services.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

What I could imagine is meeting in an outdoor space sometimes. In a corner of a park for example (if that's possible). It would be a fine line between being present enough as to be noticed and not so loud as to be disturbing. And it would help to have a big flask of coffee ready for people who want to join in.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

It often sounds a really good idea. However, I wonder whether it's possibly going to miss something really important, something that is fundamental to the Christian message. If people meet in a cafe, the occasion is likely to be built round people talking about God. That doesn't go far enough. I don't quite see how one brings in the element,
"O come let us worship and fall down: and kneel before the Lord our maker". (from the BCP version of the Venite)

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

Another approach is for the church to build itself into a focus of the community, sharing its building, or in extreme cases, giving up its building to the community and continuing to hold its worship services and other functions as it always did.

An interesting model (with the caveat that I haven't been there yet, so no first hand knowledge) is this one: http://standrewspicton.com/. I like the idea, as I think many still like the notion of the church as a home; a place to go to and to do many things, rather than something that ceases to exist on weekdays and reconstitutes itself on Sundays. Perhaps what we should be doing is showing that people are welcome to belong to the church, but that the church also belongs to the people. Then our mission might be a bit clearer, and people will see more sense in contributing to the upkeep.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I used to struggle with the idea of buildings being 'consecrated' but it's less of an issue for me now. Nor do I object to the idea of people improvising and using conference centre rooms, hotel rooms or whatever else.

I do like church buildings as 'sacred spaces' and will often bob into one to look around and to sit in quiet prayer/reflection as opportunity affords.

I'll do that in both rural and urban settings.

Of course, I can do the same thing in a park or walking along the street ... it's a both/and thing of course ... [Big Grin]

Just this last week I bobbed into the chapel at Little Gidding - somewhere I've long intended to visit given my love of Eliot's poem of that name in The Four Quartets.

I found it very powerful, to be honest. In fact, I burst into tears when I knelt 'where prayer has been valid.'

I felt as if I knew the place already - not just from photos but from Eliot's poem. 'History is now and England.'

The retreat centre and exhibition/cafe at Farrar House was closed due to illness so I had the place completely to myself. I didn't have a copy of the poem with me but to my delight I noticed that someone had left a copy conveniently on the choir stalls ... an old school copy with pencil notes around the edges.

Not caring whether anyone came in, I sat an recited it. It felt almost like some kind of liturgical or devotional act.

Of course, I was responding to my familiarity with the poem, to associations and to atmosphere ... at a deep 'soul' level.

I could easily have done the same thing in my living room at home but it wouldn't have been the same. It was very, very special.

Can anyone relate to that?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Rent.

In my experience, churches that buy real estate attract all the wrong kinds of interest.

I think with all the pitfalls that this involves, it still makes quite a lot of sense to buy - as long as you don't make a big thing about it (which suffers from the pitfalls that

Especially if you are growing church you very quickly run out of space for all sorts of things - like childrens groups etc.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Can anyone relate to that?

Yes. Definitely.

Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
17thC Baptist practice was often to meet flexibly as 'housegroups' which would then get together once a month or so in, say, a sympathetic tavern.

In this part of Wales, there are plenty of stories of Baptist churches that began meeting in barns or cow-sheds, but also the impetus to build a meeting-house (rather than a chapel) started very early. However they built and abandoned them as the need developed. They weren't at all sentimental about buildings and it was written into most church constitutions and confessions of faith that there was nothing 'sanctified' or 'consecrated' about the meeting-house itself. It was only in the 19th century that 'meeting-houses' became 'chapels', and it is largely the Victorian legacy that has been frozen in aspic. Somewhere along the line, as a minister once commented, Baptists stopped being a people of the Tabernacle and became a people of the Temple.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think rented spaces or shared spaces can work. Only this week I had a ghastly tale of a painful church split which involved all manner of property problems and real estate issues.

Not nice, not nice at all.

So I can see where Eutychus is coming from on all of that. This isn't restricted to any one tradition either - it happens across the board.

In medieval times, church buildings were multi-functional and served as 'community centres' to some extent as well as gathering places for worship. I certainly believe there's scope for creative use of space.

I'm still interested to hear what might be gained from having a more fluid approach with some sort of gatherings/presence in public spaces ... and how that might work logistically.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I would be interested to know more about the kinds of experiments that have already been done in this area.

How many of the attenders were really "new" to church? How long do these types of thing last for? I've known of a few that have come and gone in a year. Do many really last much longer? And what happens to the people who attend them? Do they ever get incorporated into a "regular" church community?

Having been a member of a church that had no building (we rented a local hall), I am aware of the good and bad points of being building-less. On the good side, you are less distracted by maintenance issues and there is a certain sense of freedom - "if we don't like this place or it gets too small, we can always go somewhere else." In my experience, building-less churches tend to be stronger on the building up of community.

But there are downsides. You have little control over the "worship space". You might be able to put up some posters or banners, but then you have to take them down again each week and that gets to be a pain in the arse. Worship is far more than the words we say or sing - the context makes an enormous difference as well, If you are in a rented hall, you're continually fighting to create an appropriate context for worship.

Like others, I tend to regard things like church-in-the-pub as trendy gimmicks. Far too often, they are done by people who want to catch the latest craze and be thought of as a hip and happening christian. But sometimes, I think that where someone has really thought things through and been really imaginative and creative, they can serve a purpose. I'm not sure, though that they are ever a long term thing.

Idealism says "you don't need a building." Cold, hard realism says "perhaps not, but it's bloody difficult doing anything long lasting without one."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

In medieval times, church buildings were multi-functional and served as 'community centres' to some extent as well as gathering places for worship. I certainly believe there's scope for creative use of space.

In mediaeval times, everyone was (at least nominally) Christian, and everyone attended services in their parish church.

In that case, acting as a "community centre" is not really different from what happens when my church gathers for a communal meal, a concert put on by the young people, or whatever.

In a modern context, when most people in the community have either some other faith, or no faith, and do not attend church, I'm not sure it's quite the same.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

In my experience, "Pub Church" tends more to be akin to theological discussions in a pub, organized by a church group, similar to 19th century European salons.

I have never heard of "Pub Church" displacing the Sunday main worship service. Frankly, that idea reeks of desperation and I fail to see any reverence or sense of holiness that comes with having worship in a Pub.

Holding services outdoors, such as a service surrounded by green space, IMHO can be moving and reflect our growing ecological concerns. I recently attend such a service for Lammas Day when I was last in Toronto.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

A number of options are emerging here:

1. space used solely for church-related events, owned

2. space used solely for church-related events, rented

3. space rented occasionally for church-related events

4. multipurpose space (whether rented or owned) managed by the church

If your church is in possession of (1) I'm not suggesting you should sell up now, but it's not a model I'd adopt given the choice

I used to dream of (4), along the lines of some large US churches (which still seem to fulfil the functions of a community centre in some places): a large auditorium with surrounding offices/small business space leased out to pay for the facility. But not any more.

Like LeRoc, I've experienced (3) and agree it's far from ideal. You quickly tire of packing everything up every Sunday. At the very least you need a permanent church office somewhere. (Also following on from LeRoc, I have on occasion done open air services. Always fun if the weather's right... from time to time).

Our church currently enjoys (2). The advantages I see are:

- in France at least, people instinctively see churches as having their own dedicated facility. Anything else screams "cult". I don't think that mindset is going away any time soon, at least in the provinces.

- while I'm drawn to the idea of allowing multiple uses, in our case this is ruled out by tax law (or we would have to pay tax like a business). We can do things like (free) art exhibitions, but nothing commercial.

- while there are downsides to renting (eg any facility we have ever rented has had a leaking roof that the owner never wants to fix) I remain convinced, having seen what's happened to some other neighbouring churches, that these are nothing compared to the potential hassles of ownership and the potential fallout.

As to the issue of space to grow, having previously led a much bigger church I'm currently of the view that anything bigger than the maximum capacity of our building (about 100 at a push) is too big (at least for anything I want to be involved in). We'll just send any surplus off to plant another church.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The problem with owning buildings is that they're expensive to maintain. The Church of Scotland here has a beautiful Edwardian building that currently requires something approaching half a million spending on it to bring it up to scratch. When the population of the entire parish is well under 1000 that starts to look problematic. Any solution to this conundrum is going to be fairly radical, but congregations with an average age well past 70 are not always good at radical.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Like LeRoc, I've experienced (3) [space rented occasionally for church-related events] and agree it's far from ideal. You quickly tire of packing everything up every Sunday. At the very least you need a permanent church office somewhere.

Yes, there is a significant set-up and pack-away task involved if one rents a space for the main church gathering. But this can help to keep things relatively simple and unfussy, two things which I think are very important (I know others disagree, of course!).

And you can spread the workload out - my church hires a school hall for our Sunday services and each of our home groups (average 10 people in a group) takes a turn on a rota system to be the 'set-up team'. There's a separate rota for someone to be in charge of the process but having each home group take a turn at helping out means everyone who is committed to the church (being in a home group is essentially how our church defines commitment / membership) is simply expected to get involved.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As to the issue of space to grow, having previously led a much bigger church I'm currently of the view that anything bigger than the maximum capacity of our building (about 100 at a push) is too big (at least for anything I want to be involved in). We'll just send any surplus off to plant another church.

Absolutely agreed. I wish more churches and leaders thought like this! As a group (any group, I mean) gets larger the dynamics change, and this should be thought about; leaders of a growing church should be thinking and praying about what to do.

Another example from the church I'm part of - when our home groups get to around 12-15 people, the leaders start to think about multiplying the group into two smaller groups, and about who in the group (or who else in the church) might be ready and willing to lead the newly-formed group. Once a home group gets to 12-15 people, it becomes harder to really know and look after one another.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I wrote a long answer about using a town centre Grade II* listed church for services and being available for the community, but the Ship went down and it all disappeared. I'll just think fate and spare you a repeat.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Seeing as my comment on the Cwmbran thread prompted Gamaliel to start this one, here's a bit more detail on what I meant by meeting as church where people already gather.

What I've got in mind is often called 'missional church' and the basic idea is that, instead of doing outreach / evangelism by setting up special meetings and the like, and saying 'come to us', we Christians 'go to them' - we get involved in our communities (neighbourhoods, workplaces, social, educational etc. etc.) and actively seek to show and tell them about Jesus.

Then, instead of drawing interested people out of that community and into our existing church community, we work with them to set up a new church where those people already are; in their home, at their workplace, in the pub where they socialise etc.

Obviously this means doing the church gatherings in a very simple way, so it just doesn't work with some people's conception of what a church service is or should be. I realise that. But one of the driving ideas behind the missional church 'thing' is that most of the time Christians have made church too complicated (so it's hard for people to get involved) and discipleship (the expectations in terms of living a Jesus-imitating life) too simple.

Here is an article that goes into this a bit more.

And Curiosity killed ... [Frown]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I used to belong to a Baptist church that hired a school hall and operated along similar lines to South Coast Kevin's. It was fine but however simple we tried to keep things there was a lot of setting up and taking down.

There were the chairs, the tea and coffee and doughnut facilities for the break in the meeting for that and there was the sound-system and so on. For some reason they felt the need for a hefty PA system which I think we could easily have done without.

Prior to that, I'd been involved in a restorationist charismatic church which met in a number of venues over the years. It took bloody ages to set everything up and take it down again. When you were on the rota you were at church from quite early in the morning sometimes until well into the afternoon.

Mind you, people who are Orthodox and who go to all the services and so on are probably similarly encumbered and tied up by it all.

I agree with Oscar the Grouch that a building-less church does build a strong sense of community. You have to work together to make it all function.

The downside can be burn-out.

Interestingly, the restorationist church I was part of grew rapidly (mostly by transfer but there were quite a number of converts) in its first few years and went from hired hall to hired hall to hired hall ...

There were attempts to push for church plants and so on over the years but the 'apostles' and elders always opposed that and this caused rifts and splits ... probably a major one every 18 months to 2 years for a time.

Eventually, after many years and lots of splits and hassle, the church acquired a listed church building in a prime location which needed a lot of attention and wasn't designed/set out for its particular style of worship.

Without the resources to do it up properly they soldiered on despite problems with parking, planning permission and all sorts of issues besides. There have been attempts to sell the building or apply for joint usage but nothing has come of it.

The church must have reached a peak membership of around 300 to 400 in the mid-1980s but this soon dropped through a series of acrimonious splits.

There are now around 70 people meeting in a building that they can't get rid of.

They are still expecting revival.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sorry, I cross-posted with South Coast Kevin ...

Yes, I can see the attraction of that kind of 'missional' approach.

What I have yet to see, at least in a Western European context, is any examples of this working in practice.

It sounds like a pipe-dream to me.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Eutychus: Like LeRoc, I've experienced (3) and agree it's far from ideal.

Sorry to disagree with you, but my church does (2). We rent a very old church building. In fact, it is so old the walls are noticably askew. It has pews, so no dragging around with chairs for every service.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see the attraction of that kind of 'missional' approach.

What I have yet to see, at least in a Western European context, is any examples of this working in practice.

That's fair enough, but how would you see examples of this working in practice? By definition, it's localised and pretty low-key, so unless you know some of the people involved or are familiar with the location then you probably wouldn't know about such a church.

A couple of examples, though:

Sheffield - a network of missional communities

London

And here is a directory of groups meeting or seeking to start meeting in a simple / missional way.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Why does the church's meeting place need to be 'consecrated'? It is the
church itself, the people, who are consecrated.

Because dedicating a space as "set apart" for sacred purposes means that after a while most people will come to it with an appropriate mindset and get more out of it, as the place can also have religious emblems and other items that focus people's minds on the purpose of their visit, and these can be kept in place permanently if wanted. It shouldn't feel as if it's just ordinary and like anywhere else, maybe with posters advertising brands of drinks on the walls, photos of ancient cricket matches and a faint reek of stale beer.

I have heard of a group that meets in a cinema on Sunday mornings but that always says "fringe" to me - a small group who aren't established enough to have their own premises and are struggling financially, and as Eutychus mentioned, with overtones of "cult". I've no idea whether their services involve Communion but hard to feel reverent in that kind of setting. I can see how settings other than specifically church ones could work but those that are designed primarily for entertainment will inevitably infuse at least an element of their own atmosphere into the proceedings.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Why not have both? My church is fairly traditional, and meets in a very prominent building in the centre of town - everyone knows where we are, and the doors are open every day, for services and also for quiet reflection.

But, in addition to this, there is a twice-a-week meeting in the pub, to which anyone can come and ask whatever questions they like. It is a small but growing number, who seem to find it a helpful addition to the more formal services. Of course, people who don't come to formal services are also welcome.

It's the church which uses a variety of approaches, both in the church and out in the community, which is most likely to thrive in the future. And, if the time comes when buildings are too expensive to maintain, other cheaper alternatives are already up and running, rather than having to invent them at a time of crisis.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair points, South Coast Kevin, but some of the directory entries sound a bit like the same-old, same-old only with a 'let's all meet in our lounge' flavour.

Perhaps I've been round the block too many times.

I do think it is possible for some of the more sacramental style churches to operate quite simply - and I think we will see more of that in the future.

There are also urban monasteries in an RC context which are operating in quite simple ways - although there is an issue with the lack of 'vocations' here in the West ... although 'vocations' are flourishing in other parts of the world.

I'm not writing off the concept of 'simple church' or 'organic church' entirely ... but I've yet to be convinced.

The Sheffield model is an interesting one but it is connected with some quite large Anglican, Baptist and house-church outfits that hae existed in the city for quite some time ... so it's effectively a network linked to already existing/functioning larger scale operations.

That might represent a helpful model, though.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Although (1) and (4) do exist, I can think of a couple of examples locally, I suspect that there's another category that's a mixture of the two. Here the church building is Grade II* listed, which limits what can be done to convert it to a multi-use space, but it is used for concerts, exhibitions, the annual horticultural show, election hustings* and other annual events. During the week coffee is served on market day, a children's theatre group meets, there's a toddler service, there are other groups who use the space.

There's also offices, in what was the curate's house next to the church and a church hall slightly further away where one set of Rainbows, Brownies and Guides meet, dance classes and a whole lot more.

In fact the church building and church hall have more groups meeting there than the purpose built town council offices, hall, kitchen, bar and committee room which is almost opposite the church rooms. To the extent that the town council building is going to be redeveloped and the offices relocated.

The current plan is to redevelop the site of the office to create an adjoining church hall with offices and decent kitchen and toilets rather than the rather primitive facilities that exist. That would include selling off the site of the church hall, provide for all the other groups using the church and to allow for somewhere to provide refreshments after funerals, baptisms and small weddings. But the largest part of the building will still be the worship space.

* Hustings may not be possible in the future as the CofE will not allow churches to be used as a platform for the BNP

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Ariel;

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Why does the church's meeting place need to be 'consecrated'? It is the
church itself, the people, who are consecrated.

Because dedicating a space as "set apart" for sacred purposes means that after a while most people will come to it with an appropriate mindset and get more out of it, as the place can also have religious emblems and other items that focus people's minds on the purpose of their visit, and these can be kept in place permanently if wanted. It shouldn't feel as if it's just ordinary and like anywhere else, maybe with posters advertising brands of drinks on the walls, photos of ancient cricket matches and a faint reek of stale beer.

'Sacred purposes' raises a few questions of its own about the nature of what a church does.

I agree a bit about places with posters and such; I think when the old Baptists met in an inn there wouldn't be such distractions. But in my experience that also applies to the modern equivalent which would be to rent a 'function room' rather than the main body of a pub. In terms of community, a community centre would probably be closer now to the tavern back then.

Even where the old Baptists did have a 'meeting house' it would be simpler than traditional churches (fewer religious emblems for starters); reflecting a different idea of 'sacredness'.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, that's fine for the Baptists. Not everyone shares the more minimalist Baptist view on 'sacredness' though.

I don't have an issue with groups of all churchmanships using community centres and so on. Some of the more sacramental groups, though, will only meet in a building if it has been 'consecrated' in some way for public worship.

Of course, in times of necessity - war, persecution etc etc - such groups will improvise.

It all depends on the context and the tradition.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I was part of a church that considered moving from a building that was too expensive to maintain into a rented space. Finding suitable spaces in the area was a challenge, but the bigger problem, IMO, was the reluctance to gird ourselves up for the change of culture that would be required. I.e. we weren't willing to worship at another time of day. Neither did members really want to worship somewhere that didn't 'look' like a church. We could have shared space with another church, but this had complications of its own.

The other issue, as has been mentioned, is the extra work required to prepare the rented space for worship. I think the charismatic churches can deal with this better because they have younger and more enthusiastic members; in small MOTR congregations this work will fall on the same few people who also have lots of other things to do. Also, without addressing the change of culture required you can end up with a hired building and a congregation that is less and less inspired to come to worship because it doesn't 'feel' like church as they know it.

For established congregations to transition in this way - and especially if the transition involves doing worship very differently as well - must require a certain spiritual mindset, a vision to be achieved other than just saving money, a committed and knowledgeable minister, a willingness to learn from others, the right sort of community setting.....

New church plants are a different matter altogether.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't think Costa customers would like our incense!

Seriously, I used to 'assist' at an 'Agnostics Anonymous' which met in the upstairs room of a pub quite central to the city. It was a good space and we has good discussions - evangelistic but not too pushy.

We did alternate Mondays - the other Mondays the same room was used by the local humanist group - that was good too but they were far more pushy.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

How would you do a funeral service in a coffee bar or pub?

[ 17. August 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: Chamois ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

You'd hire a conference hall. Or, indeed, since no one is suggesting that all traditional church buildings should or could be demolished or converted, you could hire a church building.

My position is that diversity is important, but I don't see enough diversity. There are lots of denominations, but on the ground, to the ordinary visitor of attender who's not expected to be knowledgeable about how everything works, the distinctions often seem small and insignificant.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's because the distinctions are small and insignificant.

You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the services at our local Methodist church, for instance, to those at the URC around the corner.

Equally, unless you were one of the cognoscenti you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, I'd imagine, between a Coptic or Oriental Orthodox service and an Orthodox one ...

Back in the day, I could detect nuanced differences between, say, an AoG, an Elim and an Apostolic church meeting ... not that I ever belonged to any of those groups but I knew sufficient about them to pick up some cues.

These days, all three tend to be similar in feel - as indeed do most of the 'new churches'.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
How would you do a funeral service in a coffee bar or pub?

You could do a memorial service just as easily as you could do any other sort of service, with similar formatting. If you have a separate room where you're able to worship, then you'd do a standard memorial service. If yours is the "deep theological discussion" in a common area, then the memorial would look more like a wake, with mourners sharing memories of the deceased over coffee or beer. An actual funeral (with casket), though, might be unsettling for some patrons.

That being said, special services-- weddings, funerals, baptisms-- are often held off-site for a variety of reasons. One large church I've attended has so many weekend services that they do no weekend weddings, almost all their members' weddings are performed at other local venues. It's not uncommon for funerals to be held at mortuary chapels rather than in the church (although I personally don't care for either). Churches that baptize by immersion but don't have a baptistry will often hold baptism services at someone's home with a pool or at the beach.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And I don't know if (in England) you could register a secular venue such as a village hall for solemnisingreligious weddings, anyway. Seems a bit of a grey area legally, as far as I know.

Easier to go to the Register Office and then just bless or celebrate it within the Christian fellowship.

[ 17. August 2014, 14:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's because the distinctions are small and insignificant.

Indeed. That's my point. And it seems to be totally out of keeping with this diverse, postmodern, hybrid society that we're all hearing about.

I've just started reading a book called 'Urban Church', some of whose contributors feel that the very fragility of some of the exploratory, vulnerable and tentative models of church might be what's required in a fast-moving society; that even the 'failures' might have valuable lessons to teach. These new models should make no pretence of offering inherited forms of church that will exist in the same form for generations to come, but should envision themselves as doing something different, while being humble enough to learn from others.

I can't speak for parts of the country have had their fill of 'alternatives' and now just yearn for the order and beauty of traditional Anglicanism, but the point is that change is now part of our modern condition, and I can't see how discouraging alternative grassroots initiatives now makes sense. We need more. My city needs more.

Again, I can't speak for other regions, but when neutral sociologists as well as worried evangelicals and respectable CofE bishops project that on current trends churchgoing will collapse to a miniscule level in just a few decades, I can't look around me and say, 'No! That's not going to happen 'round here! We can carry on as normal, more or less.' In many places, we need people who are willing to develop small, local kinds of Christian witness, giving of themselves, raising money for causes that need it, but not seeing every little donation swallowed up in maintaining buildings that will soon be closed anyway.

[ 17. August 2014, 15:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've just started reading a book called 'Urban Church', some of whose contributors feel that the very fragility of some of the exploratory, vulnerable and tentative models of church might be what's required in a fast-moving society; that even the 'failures' might have valuable lessons to teach. These new models should make no pretence of offering inherited forms of church that will exist in the same form for generations to come, but should envision themselves as doing something different, while being humble enough to learn from others.

Yes, this is where I'm at. Why should we expect church structures and institutions to last for decades and centuries? Maybe the pioneering of new, culturally relevant expressions of church, with all the churn that inevitably goes with that, is the best way of making disciples.

I think it would be far healthier if we became less attached to our forms of church and more attached to Christ himself, and through him, to one another. IMO church institutions and structures are just tools, and when the tools have outlived their usefulness (and can't be repaired) we should replace them with new ones.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think there are 'parts of the country' that yearn for the order and dignity of traditional Anglicanism ...

Perhaps Herefordshire is closest to it.

I spoke to a vicar from that county this week and he says it's like 1937 there. It is always 1937 in Herefordshire ...

I do think, though, that there are people - myself included to a certain extent - who are somewhat jaded with the constant novelty seeking and rearranging of the deck-chairs ... which is why I'm drawn to more traditional styles of worship.

That said, it doesn't mean that I'm not open to those been applied or worked out in new contexts and in new ways.

Whatever tradition we're into and wherever we find ourselves, Christianity is relational.

I'm not dismissing some of these more experimental forms out of hand ... we're in a post-Christian context and that requires wisdom and fluidity.

Nor do I think that the failures of some of these experiments are necessarily a bad and terrible thing either - we can learn from them.

People can get hurt though. But that can happen anywhere. 'Aslan isn't safe.'

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There are two big problems with wanting to throw everything out and change everything:

There is an expectation of what church looks like from films and books, and not finding that anywhere is even more alienating for seekers who come with something in mind;
Some consistency on how services and churches work means that churches are more accessible for many people - because they recognise the words, they know the words of the hymns, they can be told what to expect in advance for a service.

This is not saying that all churches should look the same, but that we should not throw out all traditional churches.

As a question, are numbers increasing where churches are universally changing to modern praise bands and worship?

To echo what Gamaliel's question on the Cwmbran thread, how much collateral damage of people walking away is happening? And also this homogenisation of church services is reducing choice, which is what Svtlana82 is saying.

Are people working on an assumption that because they find traditional worship unhelpful everyone else must do so too?

As a side comment, Gamaliel mentioned that at the height of the Welsh revival there were 60 baptisms in 18 months. The local CofE church baptises more than that in a year, and the majority of those are adults or older children.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Come, come Kevin ... you know that the 'old wine is best' [Big Grin]

And there are those who would say that because the Church is the Body of Christ and connected to the Head, then to reject Church in the 'traditional' and sacramental sense is tantamount to rejecting Christ ...

[Razz]

Now, I'm not saying that ... but I am wary of the constant experimentation because I think it can lead us away from Christ rather than towards him ... put a bunch of people in Starbucks and they'll come up with a kind of corporate, carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That was 60 baptisms in 18 months in one particular Baptist church, of course - where the policy would have been only to baptise adults/believers.

I can't remember the figures for the years before and after the Welsh Revival - but I think it was something between 6 and 12 baptisms a year.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair points, South Coast Kevin, but some of the directory entries sound a bit like the same-old, same-old only with a 'let's all meet in our lounge' flavour.

Perhaps I've been round the block too many times.

I'm with you on this Gamaliel. None o this is new and there's a very real danger that whole denominations are chasing the dragon of a quick fix on new forms of church that aren't new at all.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As to the issue of space to grow, having previously led a much bigger church I'm currently of the view that anything bigger than the maximum capacity of our building (about 100 at a push) is too big (at least for anything I want to be involved in). We'll just send any surplus off to plant another church.
Absolutely agreed. I wish more churches and leaders thought like this!

I bet the fundamental reason they don't is either that the leaders are paid full-time or aspire to be so, because they see the Church™ as the be-all and end-all.

Where I'm at these days is seeking the Kingdom, as instructed by Jesus [Angel]

- and leaving him to build the church (both universal and local) as and how he so wishes.

I think focusing on building a church, let alone church buildings, is a huge and historic misunderstanding of what we should be doing. Ideally, it shouldn't be up to churches to be "missional" (ugh); churches, i.e. gatherings of believers, should be a natural byproduct of believers seeking the Kingdom. I think it's actually quite hard to justify acquiring church real estate through the lens of Kingdom of God values.

Now I am enough of a pragmatist to know that we can't go back to NT times, and realise that there are advantages to being connected to the institutional churches that have grown up (as well as all their earthly assets). But I for one don't intend to lead a church from that perspective again. And quite honestly, this approach doesn't seem to do our local church any harm at all.

[ 17. August 2014, 16:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

So perhaps there is at least some mileage in doing "old church" really, really well?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

A mixture of old church and new church - allow new church initiatives to happen and work, but don't destroy old church while doing so.

If there is no appetite for old church, why are cathedral congregations be increasing?

(Oh, and an answer to what happens with Methodist marriages. The local URC church holds a wedding maybe once every 5 to 10 years, and they borrow things like the wedding kneelers from the CofE to do so.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think there are 'parts of the country' that yearn for the order and dignity of traditional Anglicanism ...

Perhaps Herefordshire is closest to it.

I spoke to a vicar from that county this week and he says it's like 1937 there. It is always 1937 in Herefordshire ...

I do think, though, that there are people - myself included to a certain extent - who are somewhat jaded with the constant novelty seeking and rearranging of the deck-chairs ... which is why I'm drawn to more traditional styles of worship.

That said, it doesn't mean that I'm not open to those been applied or worked out in new contexts and in new ways.

The obvious answer to that is, if you've found something that works for you and the people in your community, stick with it. However, does it hurt you if small groups of people in Dudley or Huddersfield are engaging in monastic cell group church, or an intentional pub fellowship, or whatever? I wouldn't have thought so.

It's true - we're not going to end up with huge numbers of cell group (etc.) baptisms. But outside of Herefordshire and the Surrey Bible Belt, or wherever, that's not on the cards anyway, is it?! But something else might be gained. A Christian witness will be present in areas where the official churches may be winding down, if they're still around anyway.

I think there's a problem in that many of these ventures seem to be occurring in areas where the official churches are already chugging along comfortably, so any new group that springs up is seen as competition, or as a disruption of the current division of labour, or as potential bad PR for themselves. I can understand why some of the commentators here would be unhappy about any of that.

However, I'm thinking more about an urban incarnational ministry in the inner cities and neighbouring suburbs, and in the outer estates. These areas, as 'Urban Church' says, have slipped down the 'ecclesiastical agenda' in terms of mission - and I've seen that with my own eyes. But they do need support. Alternative church groups should seek the goodwill and advice of the official churches nearby, but I'm very doubtful that being under the control (and the roof) of the official churches is always going to be the right thing. It looks less and less like the right thing when these local official churches are often struggling to maintain their own ministries. I can only see these struggles increasing, in many cases.

There's value in developing a theology for these places that isn't necessarily building-dependent.

[ 17. August 2014, 16:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SvitlanaV2 - I don't know where you get this idea from that I think everything Anglican is rosy. I don't. I hardly ever attend my parish church these days ... I admire what it does but it ain't really where I'm 'at'.

That said, I'm also very wary of a kind of consumerist approach to Christianity.

I've been at the annual conference of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius this week ... the core of it is made up of old Oxbridge boys on both the Anglican and Orthodox side - although there are some newer voices.

The theme was Monasticism, Marriage and the Single Life ... and there was much discussion about new forms of monasticism, urban monasticism and so on ...

There were some RC priests there too and they had some interesting things to say. There was a trip to the Orthodox monastery at Tolleshunt Knights in Essex and that was fascinating ... some of the nuns there are almost aglow - the presence of Christ with them is palpable.

Sure, we can find Christ anywhere and everywhere and I'm certainly not discounting experimentation.

What does bother me is that some of the attempts to be 'relevant' and experimental etc simply end up reinventing the wheel over and over again.

I really don't know what the answer is for those areas where the church is declining at a faster rate - such as inner city areas like yours.

I think there is scope for base-communities, for the creative use of facilities and so on ... and I'm not necessarily 'against' the sort of vision that South Coast Kevin articulates here - provided it has some ballast from the tried and tested older traditions ... things both new and old and so on.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To clarify - the thing is, SvitlanaV2, I would be both pleased and delighted if people in Dudley or Huddersfield could make a go of neo-monastic communities or 'Fresh Expressions' or whatever else.

If someone were to reverse the tide in your area by doing something new and radical - I'd also be pleased.

But what I think we're seeing - as you've highlighted yourself - are largely experimental and well-meaning efforts by middle-class Christians in areas where there are already quite active congregations.

I'm sorry, and with all due respect to South Coast Kevin - but the doing church down at Starbucks with your mates thing is a very studenty/post-studenty thing to do. It is very, very middle-class.

There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ... people who are middle-class professionals can't help being middle-class professionals.

Even if - as I knew one chap do - they deliberately eschew a middle-class professional career in order to work in a petrol station (gas station) they are still doing it in a middle-class kind of way.

We are all products of our backgrounds and upbringing.

As ExclamationMark says, there's nothing particularly 'new' in a lot of this stuff.

That doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' or not worth doing ... simply that it doesn't warrant the fuss and hype that is sometimes made about it.

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

I'm used to church meeting in a house while being part of a larger church that meets in a traditional building (and meeting as part of that wider church once a month or so).

Advantages in my mind of meeting in a house are as follows:

1) Some people attend who would be reluctant to attend in a church building for whatever pre-conceived ideas.

2) To some extent it combats the dualism that can exist between "church life" and "everyday life" - and certainly leads to people being more comfortable talking about God and praying and worshipping in a more everyday environment rather than in a special place.

3) It is easier for teaching and worship to be more interactive.

4) Its easier to be flexible in terms of people don't come along with such a clear expectation of what is going to happen; or they at least have an expectation that things might be different to normal.

Disadvantages:

1) The biggest disadvantage is how to do growth; do you move to more than one house? - if so how do you develop enough leaders?

2) People don't know where to find you so you can only grow through personal invitation or referral not through people just turning up.

3) Some people would probably be more comfortable being invited to a more neutral less personal space.

I tend to think there are lots of different ways of doing church and lots of them have value. Where two of more are sincerely gathered in Jesus' name he shows up....

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To clarify - the thing is, SvitlanaV2, I would be both pleased and delighted if people in Dudley or Huddersfield could make a go of neo-monastic communities or 'Fresh Expressions' or whatever else.

If someone were to reverse the tide in your area by doing something new and radical - I'd also be pleased.

I don't think it's a question of reversing the tide. Small faith communities are unlikely to become huge communities. Success doesn't mean a 'revival' - which neither of us seems to expect anyway. But I don't see that as a reason why some Christians shouldn't give themselves to the work of an incarnational ministry.

quote:

But what I think we're seeing - as you've highlighted yourself - are largely experimental and well-meaning efforts by middle-class Christians in areas where there are already quite active congregations.

[...]
There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ... people who are middle-class professionals can't help being middle-class professionals.

That conference you mentioned sounded rather middle class, so perhaps you should leave poor old SCK alone! [Smile]

The problem I have isn't that people are middle class professionals, the problem is that middle class Christians, including those who are training to be perfectly traditional clergy, seem to be increasingly reluctant to be missional in places that aren't particularly nice.

To be fair to the area where I used to worship, it's on the inner city/boho suburban fringe, so you do get some middle class people living there. It's also a place where you get the phenomenon of people who live further away or who move but who come back to worship. The local Baptist church is a good example of a more incarnational environment. But when my church closed it did feel as though the Methodists were retreating to the suburbs further out. The 'alternative' stuff (jazz church, messy church, etc.) is more suburb-based, except for what's been established in the city centre.

The Parish church I attend now is in a more middle class setting, but not in the sense of loads of people being churchgoers. There are also middle class charismatic congregations in rented premises not too far away, but no small group grassroots fellowships that I know of.

quote:

As ExclamationMark says, there's nothing particularly 'new' in a lot of this stuff.

That doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' or not worth doing ... simply that it doesn't warrant the fuss and hype that is sometimes made about it.

Maybe you're hanging out with the wrong people! Or it could be a regional thing. It's certainly not something I hear about, either at Churches Together meetings, or when I bump into Methodists or inner city Pentecostals, etc. Methodists are interested in promoting FEs, but I get the feeling that only initiatives that come from sexy middle class sources are worthy of that name....

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, the conference I attended was very middle-class ... and I don't think it would pretend otherwise. The only ones who weren't your conventional middle-class types were the Greeks ... there were a number of them there and there was an attractively raw bluntness about them that you don't get with middle-class Anglicans.

I'm not giving SCK a hard time about his vision being middle-class and studenty in and of itself ... but his vision is pretty middle-class and studenty. That can't be helped - that's where he's coming from.

The Vineyard is pretty middle-class.

The house-churchy thing was more working class and lower middle-class up north and in South Wales than it was elsewhere - but there were quite a number of middle-class types involved with it as well.

As Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist so incisively pointed out, a charismatic is a middle-class Pentecostal.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To clarify - the thing is, SvitlanaV2, I would be both pleased and delighted if people in Dudley or Huddersfield could make a go of neo-monastic communities or 'Fresh Expressions' or whatever else.

If someone were to reverse the tide in your area by doing something new and radical - I'd also be pleased.

But what I think we're seeing - as you've highlighted yourself - are largely experimental and well-meaning efforts by middle-class Christians in areas where there are already quite active congregations.

I'm sorry, and with all due respect to South Coast Kevin - but the doing church down at Starbucks with your mates thing is a very studenty/post-studenty thing to do. It is very, very middle-class.

There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself ... people who are middle-class professionals can't help being middle-class professionals.

Even if - as I knew one chap do - they deliberately eschew a middle-class professional career in order to work in a petrol station (gas station) they are still doing it in a middle-class kind of way.

We are all products of our backgrounds and upbringing.

As ExclamationMark says, there's nothing particularly 'new' in a lot of this stuff.

That doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' or not worth doing ... simply that it doesn't warrant the fuss and hype that is sometimes made about it.

Maybe the Starbucks type meetings are very middle-class, but I know some thoroughly working-class groups who meet in pubs. However this is done in addition to the main church services (which used to be held in a school hall, now in a community centre - so still without a specialised building of its own).

FWIW this is a working-class charismatic free church in Yorkshire.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Good sensible post from Green Mario.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I don't know much about churches, but I think building or renting depends in part on how many appropriate spaces are available for rent.
I used to joke that in Boston old churches became movie theaters while in New York several neighborhood movie palaces became churches. There is a notable scarcity in some places of meeting rooms available for a workable rent, and the schools are already chock full of after school activities. In some places the slow dying of a Church with a building and a small wealthy congregation may mean they are willing to share the space with new churches with a nominal rent.

[ 18. August 2014, 08:34: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality. Add to that the 'nothing changes here' attitude of some church members and you can find any kind of practical and needful development almost impossible, and/or impossibly expensive.

Unlike our forebears who cheerfully knocked down a wall, blocked up a door, changed the roof pitch, etc. pretty much as fashion or need required, and money allowed, Christians in this country today are often hobbled by a culture that is more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards, and even dealing with today can be problematic.

On the other hand, one of the church buildings I have had the pleasure of helping look after was the product of a very helpful bomb, courtesy of Herr Hitler. After the war the whole community got together and 'bought a brick'. The result was/is a rather humble building, but it is not unattractive, is very easy to maintain because of its straightforward architecture, and basically gets out of the way and allows the congregation to spend its resources on people, rather than 'keeping the roof on'. The building is well used by both the congregation and the local community. A win, I would say.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality. Add to that the 'nothing changes here' attitude of some church members and you can find any kind of practical and needful development almost impossible, and/or impossibly expensive.

Unlike our forebears who cheerfully knocked down a wall, blocked up a door, changed the roof pitch, etc. pretty much as fashion or need required, and money allowed, Christians in this country today are often hobbled by a culture that is more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards, and even dealing with today can be problematic.

On the other hand, one of the church buildings I have had the pleasure of helping look after was the product of a very helpful bomb, courtesy of Herr Hitler. After the war the whole community got together and 'bought a brick'. The result was/is a rather humble building, but it is not unattractive, is very easy to maintain because of its straightforward architecture, and basically gets out of the way and allows the congregation to spend its resources on people, rather than 'keeping the roof on'. The building is well used by both the congregation and the local community. A win, I would say.

Agreed - things like making older churches disabled-accessible or even just putting in toilets is often blocked by heritage groups, not the clergy or church congregations.

SCK - one of the things that concerns me about house churches/churches in secular businesses like coffee shops is that they rather restrict the type of church one can do. What about people who want a sung Eucharist with smells and bells every week?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SCK can answer for himself, but I suspect he'd say that people who want sung worship with bells and smells can do that in their church buildings ... which will become increasingly difficult to maintain.

You can do bells and smells in hired facilities, of course. I was at an Anglican/Orthodox conference last week and the Orthodox conducted their Liturgy in one of the regular conference rooms.

It can be done, but it doesn't quite 'feel' the same.

I'm sure an RC Mass would work in that context too but it wouldn't feel the same as one in a dedicated building ... but then, there are plenty of open air Masses and Masses in slum dwellings and thatched huts and all manner of other places.

An RC priest told me about a fearsome Irish nun he knows who would round on anyone who said something like, 'Fr O'Reilly, now he says a good Mass ...'

'Brothers,' she would rasp, 'The Mass is the Mass is the Mass!'

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality.

And the "no responsibility" also includes "no contribution towards the costs". That must be an horrendous problem for the C of E in particular, saddled with the upkeep of so many magnificent buildings but dwindling congregations. Tax-free is not a sufficient contribution towards the maintenance of great public assets. And not just for the C of E either, although other European countries seem to manage better. Even here, the Cathedral at Bendigo has been closed for a number of years because money is not available for work essential to ensure safe use of the building.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
From practical experience I would say that one of the biggest barriers to effective use and development of existing church buildings is (notwithstanding the very good work that is done) the 'planning system' and assorted associated 'heritage lobby groups' (you know who you are) which can be very good at the 'all care and no responsibility' approach to engaging with reality. Add to that the 'nothing changes here' attitude of some church members and you can find any kind of practical and needful development almost impossible, and/or impossibly expensive.

Unlike our forebears who cheerfully knocked down a wall, blocked up a door, changed the roof pitch, etc. pretty much as fashion or need required, and money allowed, Christians in this country today are often hobbled by a culture that is more inclined to look backwards rather than forwards, and even dealing with today can be problematic.

On the other hand, one of the church buildings I have had the pleasure of helping look after was the product of a very helpful bomb, courtesy of Herr Hitler. After the war the whole community got together and 'bought a brick'. The result was/is a rather humble building, but it is not unattractive, is very easy to maintain because of its straightforward architecture, and basically gets out of the way and allows the congregation to spend its resources on people, rather than 'keeping the roof on'. The building is well used by both the congregation and the local community. A win, I would say.
Agreed - things like making older churches disabled-accessible or even just putting in toilets is often blocked by heritage groups, not the clergy or church congregations.

Agreed. The Victorian Society has (in my experience) been one of the worst culprits in this regard. Even insignificant Grade 2 churches (of which there are plenty!) can get the full "thou shalt not change" treatment, even when everyone else is in full agreement.

From a C of E perspective, Diocesan Advisory Committees usually need to look at themselves too. Often they may say that they want to be friendly and encouraging but the endless form-filling and bureaucracy stifle all incentive to make even minor changes to buildings. You shouldn't have to cut down a rain forest to remove a single pew to make space for a wheelchair.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - one of the things that concerns me about house churches/churches in secular businesses like coffee shops is that they rather restrict the type of church one can do. What about people who want a sung Eucharist with smells and bells every week?

Oh yes, the venue one is using will of course restrict what one can do, churchmanship-wise. But the idea I was bringing in is intended to bring Jesus and Christian community to people who essentially know and care very little for our faith; and then as they come to be intrigued by Jesus, instead of trying to drag them out of their existing social contexts into our church contexts, we help them set up church (i.e. Christian community) where they already are.

If people like that want to have a sung Eucharist with smells and bells then, sure, that will take more effort (and perhaps be more excluding, which is a problem) than a lower-maintenance style of meeting. But maybe it could be done in a non-conventional venue, if that's what the people involved wanted. No inherent reason why not, AFAICT...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The Victorian Society has (in my experience) been one of the worst culprits in this regard. Even insignificant Grade 2 churches (of which there are plenty!) can get the full "thou shalt not change" treatment, even when everyone else is in full agreement.

From a C of E perspective, Diocesan Advisory Committees usually need to look at themselves too ...

Our building (Grade 2 listed) is under the auspices of the URC. Our local Synod's Listed Building Committee was quite helpful when we wanted to remove some pews. We were more worried at first with the man from English Heritage as he took zillions of photos; when asked, he said, "Oh, I just like taking photos of old chapels"!

We have also received a five-figure sum from the local URC Synod towards stonework repairs - nothing like enough, but it has helped, and we are hopeful of more. However such grants are only given if the Synod feels that the church (congregation) is active and has some reasonable hope of surviving.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

DACs are slow, but not unhelpful. It took a while to get permission to change the (small section of) lead roofing to something less liable to be stolen after a bungled attempt that removed the lead but left it stashed just down the road for later collection, but it wasn't a problem. And mostly they're interested and supportive of changes.

The Victorian Society are a pain, insist things are preserved in aspic and have no money to support anything. English Heritage are mostly helpful - living working buildings are more likely to survive.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm sure there must be examples from around the world of RC mission initiatives that have involved the celebration of the Mass - not necessarily in an elaborate form - in shanty towns, in refugee camps and much else besides.

I'm sure that can be done.

I don't have a problem in theory with what South Coast Kevin is advocating but find it hard to envisage how we could set up some form of Christian community without influencing it with our own cultural values etc etc.

What tends to happen, from what I can see, is that in missional contexts the Christian body tends to introduce something that it already does and then that is taken and adapted by the host community.

A good example might be the Melanesian Brotherhood (and sisterhood) in the South Pacific.

Anglican missionaries introduced the idea of religious communities and orders - there was a revival of such orders within the CofE at that time - and this was taken up by the Melanesians and given a particular Melanesian 'twist'.

I heard a talk about it all this last week and was intrigued by how the Brotherhood developed was in keeping with Melanesian cultural norms and so on ...

I don't know why it should always be assumed that a 'pared back' approach is the right one. I've seen footage of Orthodox services in Africa which seem to fit in with the prevailing cultural expressions ... people dancing to the services, African styles of chant and singing etc. Same with RC services in that part of the world. From what evangelical missionaries have sniffily told me, some African cultures love bells and smells and robes and so on ... notice how many African indigeneous churches have taken up on robes and ritual and so on ... often, it has to be said, in a rather syncretic way.

I spoke to an Anglican priest this last week who'd just returned from Ethiopia - he's planning to write a study of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Now that's a very peculiar church from a Western perspective ...

He told me that the Ethiopian Orthodox and the burgeoning Pentecostal groups over there - which now account for 20% of the population - share one big thing in common - they are both obsessed with exorcism and the spirit-world ... that's a big thing in their culture.

What'd be a big thing in other cultures would undoubtedly be different.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Earlier in the year I visited Turkana in the north west of Kenya. Both RC and Anglican churches have built a "proper" church in Lodwah (the county capital) and what a welcome thing that is as the sun beats down and temperatures sore.
But in the rural parishes, communion is celebrated by a robed priest and a handful of people under a cluster of Acacia trees with camels and goats standing by.

Be it Kenya or Kentish Town, I think perhaps culture, money and environment have a large part to play in this discussion?

[ 19. August 2014, 13:29: Message edited by: MrsBeaky ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes indeed, Mrs Beaky.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
DACs are slow, but not unhelpful.

My gripe (such as it is) is that DAC's could be more helpful with rather minimal changes to procedures. Individual people on the DACs are (mostly) very nice people. I have had some fascinating and very helpful conversations with DAC members. But at the end of the day, the system is so slow and time-consuming that I understand fully why so many churches choose to circumvent it.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

I know of a church which about the mid-19thC built a large building near a town centre. By the 1960s, that building was, well, in need of repair. They looked at the likely bill, and the then size of the congregation – and decided to knock the original church down and sell the site, which is now occupied by offices, though the church is allowed to use the offices' car park outside office hours.

The congregation then moved into what had formerly been the Sunday School, on a site just behind the original building, and they're still there.

Somewhere along the way, and I wasn't around at the time so I'm not sure of the detail, they realised that the location was no longer surrounded by houses and people and had perhaps become non-ideal. One response to this was to look for an alternative building, and one was found – a factory-cum-office building that had been, I believe, used by a maker of nurse's uniforms and similar work clothes. I've seen it, it would have been good, and it was well sited in a mostly residential area which still is so decades later – but they turned it down; too many of the congregation thought it didn't look like a church (which indeed is true). The congregation are arguably still suffering from that decision ….

Hmmm!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
SCK - one of the things that concerns me about house churches/churches in secular businesses like coffee shops is that they rather restrict the type of church one can do. What about people who want a sung Eucharist with smells and bells every week?
Oh yes, the venue one is using will of course restrict what one can do, churchmanship-wise. But the idea I was bringing in is intended to bring Jesus and Christian community to people who essentially know and care very little for our faith; and then as they come to be intrigued by Jesus, instead of trying to drag them out of their existing social contexts into our church contexts, we help them set up church (i.e. Christian community) where they already are.

If people like that want to have a sung Eucharist with smells and bells then, sure, that will take more effort (and perhaps be more excluding, which is a problem) than a lower-maintenance style of meeting. But maybe it could be done in a non-conventional venue, if that's what the people involved wanted. No inherent reason why not, AFAICT...

I agree with you in principle, but there's an interesting counter-argument in the form of cathedral worship growing. I think now that cathedrals are seen as tourist attractions rather than churches, people feel more comfortable just wandering in and sitting and listening/watching. What would be your response to that?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I know of a church which about the mid-19thC built a large building near a town centre. By the 1960s, that building was, well, in need of repair. They looked at the likely bill, and the then size of the congregation – and decided to knock the original church down and sell the site, which is now occupied by offices, though the church is allowed to use the offices' car park outside office hours.

The congregation then moved into what had formerly been the Sunday School, on a site just behind the original building, and they're still there.

Somewhere along the way, and I wasn't around at the time so I'm not sure of the detail, they realised that the location was no longer surrounded by houses and people and had perhaps become non-ideal. One response to this was to look for an alternative building, and one was found – a factory-cum-office building that had been, I believe, used by a maker of nurse's uniforms and similar work clothes. I've seen it, it would have been good, and it was well sited in a mostly residential area which still is so decades later – but they turned it down; too many of the congregation thought it didn't look like a church (which indeed is true). The congregation are arguably still suffering from that decision ….

Hmmm!

Yes. As soon as you put down roots, it becomes much harder to upsticks if the population profile changes.

The very first church I was a member of had been built in the Victorian era and had originally been in the heart of a fairly densely packed residential area. Over time, the houses dwindled, to be replaced by shops and businesses. When I first started attending the church almost no-one attending actually lived in the parish. The vicarage was (and still is) over a mile outside the parish boundaries. And I know of many other churches where the population has shifted, leaving the church in relative isolation.

Of course, not being in the heart of the community you are seeking to serve is not a complete disaster. You just have to work that much harder to make the connections between church and the wider community. And if the church is eclectic - drawing people from a wide geographical area with no great concern to serve a specific patch - then the actual location of the church is almost irrelevant.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I agree with you in principle, but there's an interesting counter-argument in the form of cathedral worship growing. I think now that cathedrals are seen as tourist attractions rather than churches, people feel more comfortable just wandering in and sitting and listening/watching. What would be your response to that?

I find it difficult, to be honest. The very idea of someone sitting on the edge (metaphorically and literally) of a church service / community and not actually interacting with any of the people runs completely contrary to my idea of what church is.

But, practically speaking, if some people gain comfort and draw nearer to Christ through sitting on the edge of cathedral services then [addressing myself here!] that's a good thing, right...? I suppose the only question is the 'opportunity cost' - what else could be done with those resources (people's time, the money involved etc.) that might have more impact in terms of sharing the good news of Jesus?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Our very simple suburban church is open in daylight hours, 7 days a week. Apart from entries in the visitor's book, quick observations by the Rector and Parish Secretary show that many people call in, sit and stay a while. Some are regulars, others less so, but the comments made are very positive. It's worth the security risk to give people a place where they can stop and think quietly, maybe pray, and often gain solace. It's a bit hard to do that if you meet in a roster of houses.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes, church here is open during the day during the week, with a prayer board, pens and paper for people to put up prayers, candles to light and space, memorial book open. All of which are used a lot.

This CofE church opens on Sunday evenings even when there isn't a service as so many people walk in to pray and sit in silence, often looking at a cross or carvings of the stories of Jesus, or stained glass ... lots of visual support for prayer - also not possible in non-dedicated places. And the building acts as a signal.

The Elim Church here had a tin tabernacle in a back street which they sold for redevelopment and since have been wandering and have reduced in numbers dramatically. They now meet in a secular hall on Sundays, and the way their finances are going I'm not sure how long that is going to be viable. There alternative place - where they meet on Christmas Day is about to disappear, which will leave them with no place to meet then. They tried for a base in various places to be a presence during the week, but those have all fallen through for different reasons. Not having a base has huge disadvantages.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... practically speaking, if some people gain comfort and draw nearer to Christ through sitting on the edge of cathedral services then [addressing myself here!] that's a good thing, right...? I suppose the only question is the 'opportunity cost' - what else could be done with those resources (people's time, the money involved etc.) that might have more impact in terms of sharing the good news of Jesus?

Who are you to say? You will sow where you will not reap and you will reap where you have not sown. And Christ will have met people where they are and you will have provided a place for that to happen.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think cathedrals are a special case. They promote the brand, so to speak, so whatever's spent on them is hardly considered to be wasted money.

There's an interesting church, charismatic evangelical, not far from me. It rents a school hall for Sunday worship, and owns a large Edwardian house on the same road about a mile down. The house seems to be where they hold their Alpha courses and other activities and meetings.

This is an interesting solution, because it means the members don't have to struggle to maintain a large worship space that's used only one day a week, but they can do what they like on the more easily manageable site they own.

Of course, only a very well attended church in good financial health can do this. Moreover, independent charismatic evangelicals aren't the guardians of anyone's national heritage, so what they do in terms of buildings isn't going to scandalise anyone.

[ 20. August 2014, 12:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There's an interesting church, charismatic evangelical, not far from me. It rents a school hall for Sunday worship, and owns a large Edwardian house on the same road about a mile down. The house seems to be where they hold their Alpha courses and other activities and meetings.

This is an interesting solution, because it means the members don't have to struggle to maintain a large worship space that's used only one day a week, but they can do what they like on the more easily manageable site they own.

This is exactly what my church does, and it seems to work very well. It gives the church a space in which it can do some community-focused work and, like SV2 says, it means we're not saddled with the maintenance of a large building.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Who are you to say? You will sow where you will not reap and you will reap where you have not sown. And Christ will have met people where they are and you will have provided a place for that to happen.

I don't think I am 'saying'... I'm just suggesting that the people involved should consider the opportunity cost - when we do pretty much anything in any context there are presumably other things we might have done instead, and it's good to consider which of the options is likely to be best, surely? ('Best' covering a range of considerations.)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I didn't mean that in any confrontational sense, and I'd agree with you that we need to think about what we devote resources too and why, but we need to take account of the unquantifiables and also to recognise that much of what we do will be done for a number of reasons.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Oh yes, absolutely. [Smile]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@SvitlanaV2 - Would you be so kind as to PM me? I'd like to ask you a quick question, if I may. (Don't worry, it's not a nasty one!)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whether we like it or not, though, South Coast Kevin, the reality of it all is that some of those people at cathedral services will be there precisely because they don't want to engage with your particular model of church ...

Many will be refugees from charismatic evangelical parishes or parishes of other churchmanships but which have started to mess about with the liturgy or else try to pressurise them to join this, that or the other rota ...

So they know that if they go to a cathedral service they are pretty much going to be left alone and not cajoled or pressurised in any way.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, simply stating a case.

I agree with SvitlanaV2 that cathedrals are a 'special case' to some extent and that the kind of criteria we might otherwise use doesn't necessarily apply.

As I've said, even though I do jab and jibe a bit, I'm not against experimentation and different ways of doing things per se.

But the fact remains, not everyone wants the kind of very immersive style of church life that you appear to favour. There's a place for it, certainly and I've been involved with stuff like that in the past.

There's some kind of balance somewhere between church life as something confined to occasional attendance at a communion service, say and church life where practically everything revolves around church.

Our local vicar almost appears to want everyone's social life to revolve around the church, for instance. He doesn't say it in as many words but that's the impression I get. Everything becomes a means to an end ... let's have some line-dancing sessions so you can invite your friends, let's have a quiz, let's have a this, let's have a that ...

I can understand the motivation and the reasoning but find it all a bit much.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

If people like that want to have a sung Eucharist with smells and bells then, sure, that will take more effort (and perhaps be more excluding, which is a problem) than a lower-maintenance style of meeting. But maybe it could be done in a non-conventional venue, if that's what the people involved wanted. No inherent reason why not, AFAICT...

Are there any examples of Evensong being conducted in a 'non-traditional' setting? I've become a fan of Evensong. Obviously, there's unlikely to be a choir on hand in someone's living room, but the Magnificat, etc., could presumably be performed on a recording, or a good soloist in the group could do it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sadly, Evensong seems to be dying out.

Around here, Evensong is well attended in rural parishes as it's become a rare treat. It seems to have virtually died a death in the towns, though.

[Frown]

I see no reason why Evensong - like communion - can't be taken out and about. As Mrs Beaky says, out in Kenya etc communion services are held in the open air or under the cover of trees.

Mind you, other than the house-bound or people in sheltered accommodation/old people's homes etc ... I can't see what would be gained by taking Evensong out of a parish church building and into a pub or a community centre. The people who'd generally appreciate Evensong aren't going to be put off by going into a church building.

It'd be interesting to see how Evensong would fare 'out on the road' though ...

I tend to think that whatever style of worship we're talking about, it tends to work best in context. If you took South Coast Kevin's Vineyard church, for instance, and took the worship there out of its context and transplanted it somewhere else - I don't know, in a cathedral say - then it wouldn't quite be the same.

If we were to take church services out 'to the people' as it were, then I can't see why simple liturgical forms wouldn't work - after all, it would give people something to 'do' and say etc.

I don't think South Coast Kevin is envisaging wall-to-wall chorus singing, for instance ...

I'm not entirely sure how he envisages these things, a mix of alt-worship and discussion, I'd imagine - and some alt-worship stuff can be quite liturgical in form.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whether we like it or not, though, South Coast Kevin, the reality of it all is that some of those people at cathedral services will be there precisely because they don't want to engage with your particular model of church ...

Many will be refugees from charismatic evangelical parishes or parishes of other churchmanships but which have started to mess about with the liturgy or else try to pressurise them to join this, that or the other rota ...

There is a little rural nonconformist chapel I know, it nearly closed but was kept open largely by one person's enthusiasm. It only has an evening service. Everything is done "properly" and music is led with an organ.

Attendance has nearly doubled in 5 years (28 people there a couple of weeks ago), in a village which has not seen any new building or vast cultural shift.

So who have joined it? One or two "incomers" (but they have replaced other folk who have died); and several folk who don't like the "loud music" or "informality" of their former churches. One could argue all one likes about these folk being "traditional" or "stuck in their ways"; nevertheless it does fill a niche, just as 8am 1662 HC does for some Anglicans.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And while provision like this might not attract many new people (rather depends on the context and place) it might well stop some of those people from being de-churched. My in-laws are just the sort of people who would appreciate a chapel like this: their Methodist Church closed, the minister of the URC to which they moved is very much a praise-band type who (they say) seems not to understand the needs of a largely elderly congregation, and from having been regular and active worshippers they are becoming semi-detached- not a good position to be in, especially in your 70s and 80s.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I'd go along with that.

I'd see this sort of thing as a non-conformist parallel with what's been happening in cathedrals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If I understand South Coast Kevin correctly, though, I'm not sure he's envisaging the kind of community church plants he's describing as necessarily involving praise-bands and the like.

If I understand him correctly, he'd envisage them as multi-participatory certainly but not necessarily wedded to a particular music style or cultural expression.

The thing is, though, in aiming to be 'relevant' and so on it begs the question, 'relevant to whom?'

I spent 6 years quite happily in a trendy Baptist church plant but was never convinced that it was ever going to be 'relevant' to anyone beyond its core demographic of 20 and 30 somethings ... with a smattering of older people.

When someone told me that they wanted to be 'relevant' to the community, I asked him how on earth guitar-led sub-Vineyard style worship was going to be relevant to an 80 year old lady living round the corner ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

That also poses the question as to whether churches should even strive to be relevant, or should take the line of being deliberately counter-cultural (do I hear a Dead Horse begin to stir, or a Can of Worms opening?)

Admittedly, "counter-cultural" does not automatically equate to "old-fashioned".

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I would say that the antonym of "relevant" is not "counter-cultural" but "irrelevant".

You can be as counter-cultural as you like, but if you're not relevant (ie - you're not connecting with where people really are), then you're just wasting your time.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I am someone who is really aware of my environment and so when it comes to worship I am drawn to beauty both man-made and natural.
I know that some other people don't need or want these things.
If the life of a church congregation is both God-ward and outwards in service, then we need different kinds of places to facilitate these things. The communion services outside here in northern Kenya only work because the annual rainfall is so low there. Here in the Rift Valley we have been rained into the church on many an occasion and so all the parishes have tin-roofed churches. (Tangent- I had to stop preaching once as none of us could hear ourselves thinking...)
So I think every local church needs to consider what serves them best and that might include a variety of approaches. Back in the UK I attend a Cathedral but there are also small groups for contemplative prayer and Bible study which meet in people's homes and well as many buildings in the Cathedral close that are used for a variety of events.
I have several friends who are priests who have the joy of wonderful, beautiful buildings in which to worship and have also fund-raised to build a parish centre to facilitate things like toddler groups.
Newer churches might well utilise coffee shops/ pubs/ homes and hire a place for Sundays- not my personal preference but to all intents and purposes perhaps not that different from how my priest friends use their churches?
It's the content and style of services and small group meetings that I think shows more of difference rather than the actual choice of building.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I see no reason why Evensong - like communion - can't be taken out and about. As Mrs Beaky says, out in Kenya etc communion services are held in the open air or under the cover of trees.

Mind you, other than the house-bound or people in sheltered accommodation/old people's homes etc ... I can't see what would be gained by taking Evensong out of a parish church building and into a pub or a community centre. The people who'd generally appreciate Evensong aren't going to be put off by going into a church building.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed, Mrs Beaky.

The thing is, however we 'do' church that's going to determine what we actually offer people.

That's a truism and bleedingly obvious but it's worth pointing out.

So, if a relatively sacramentally/High Churchly inclined person is going to 'plant' something or attempt to 'connect' with people beyond the walls of their church in a way that involves worship and so on ... (rather than community engagement in other ways) then it'll inevitably carry that flavour.

If SCK and his pals attempted to church plant tomorrow, they would be offering Vineyardy flavoured material and assuming that people want the kind of informal, relational and interactive approach that this involves.

What neither would do - I suspect - is go out and find what the community actually want in terms of spiritual activity - do they know what they want until they see it? - and offer that.

It's easy to say, 'We'll just offer them Jesus' but how does that work? What does it look it on the ground?

We can't divorce ourselves from culture or history. We are what we are through a whole range of influences and developments.

None of us operate in some kind of spiritual vacuum.

It's easy to say, but perhaps what we should be doing is finding what is already of Christ out there and working with that. What that is or might be ... well, answers on a postcard please ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

[/b]

Your last sentence is an assumption; we don't know if there are people out there who would appreciate Evensong, but who wouldn't feel comfortable entering a very imposing parish church and mixing with a very 'churchy' demographic in order to participate in it.

More importantly, though, as a form of outreach 'living room Evensong' would have to offer more than simply a beautiful worship service, but also a supportive community for the target group. In fact, the supportive aspect is likely to be much more meaningful to many people than the precise style of worship. And as the 'target group' I'm not thinking here of the middle class professionals with their (supposedly) wonderful lives but of people who are likely to have greater difficulties. Reaching out to them and then ministering to them in a home fellowship would take more than buying some new cushions and a few CDs of medieval church music.

Remember too that developing alternative sites for worship doesn't necessarily mean deliberately ignoring a perfectly nice church building with a perfectly decent congregation. It could mean planting a fellowship where there's no church at all. It could mean that the only church in the vicinity is in poor condition. It could mean that none of the local churches have the interest or the manpower to engage in outreach, or at least not the kind of work that's being proposed. [/QUOTE]

Yes, I was making an assumption. The thing is, we are all making assumptions. We none of us have any idea what it is that people 'out there' want in terms of worship services, styles of worship etc etc .

My guess would be that many of them don't want any of that at all. What they might appreciate, though, is some genuine interest and love and care without any particular strings attached.

You were asking the question whether living room Evensong would work. I was simply offering my opinion - which was that I doubt that it would - in and of itself.

Any form of outreach or 'fresh expression' or whatever we want to call it is obviously much more than a few scatter cushions and CDs of medieval chant ... or guitar-led choruses or meditation style services or whatever else.

If that's all it is, then that's all it is.

Whatever our tradition and personal tastes/preferences we should be looking to offer something holistic that expresses the love of God in some way ... that doesn't necessarily involve church services of course. It's what we do outside and beyond the services and meetings that's important ...

Of course, it's a both/and thing.

I've got absolutely no idea how one goes about planting churches and so on - and I've involved with a few attempts to do so.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's true that many churches don't make enough effort to find out what 'local communities' want from them. Probably because if they do, they'll be expected to provide whatever it is....

But involvement in community projects, especially where outside, secular funding is sought, probably forces churches to be better at listening. Churches Together in a nearby area have established that youth provision is the greatest local need. Since most of the young people in the area are Muslims (of various origins) church provision has to be about cooperation and trust, not about mass conversions. Even the evangelicals in the area accept that.

Any theologically mainstream but 'roofless' fellowship in that area would most likely have a relationship with the churches already present. And there would also be at least some impact in inter-faith terms. Some Muslims do appreciate having Christians in the area; and some regret 'white flight', which takes us into a whole different debate, but it does relate to the presence of Christians in urban, multicultural areas.

I haven't helped to plant any churches, but the care home fellowship I'm involved in provides food for thought. I must make sure the founder records her experiences before her health begins to fail.

Other contexts will give rise to other outcomes and present different issues, certainly.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure - the sort of thing you are describing doesn't necessarily involve having a roof or not having a roof ... it sounds to me that there's plenty of scope for community involvement of some form or other irrespective of what flavour of church it is.

A Pentecostal friend of mine is involved with a Christian based charity in a large UK conurbation. She always comments on how many RCs are involved, how hard they work, how much money they raise and how much they contribute in terms of time and effort - and without wanting any acknowledgement or big fuss made either.

Conversely, she reflects on how few Pentecostals and evangelicals are involved ... because they're all so busy with their own meetings and services and so on ...

In terms of what local communities 'want' from churches ... well, that's going to vary considerably from place to place, of course. Someone from our parish runs a very successful Job Club for the long term unemployed and it's kick started an allotment where people can grow vegetables and do something positive and constructive with their time. That's cool.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure - the sort of thing you are describing doesn't necessarily involve having a roof or not having a roof ... it sounds to me that there's plenty of scope for community involvement of some form or other irrespective of what flavour of church it is.

Oh, certainly. But putting aside the issue of the atmosphere and dynamics of worshipping in an 'official' space, it seems obvious to me that if you're not contributing to the upkeep of a building you have more money to give to other causes.

I realise that this is less of an issue for the CofE, whose buildings may be subsidised to a certain extent. Also, wealthier congregations and churchgoers don't really have to think about affordability so much.

quote:

A Pentecostal friend of mine is involved with a Christian based charity in a large UK conurbation. She always comments on how many RCs are involved, how hard they work, how much money they raise and how much they contribute in terms of time and effort - and without wanting any acknowledgement or big fuss made either.

Conversely, she reflects on how few Pentecostals and evangelicals are involved ... because they're all so busy with their own meetings and services and so on ...

Maybe it's the case that Pentecostalism doesn't 'work' so well if individuals don't meet often to develop deep relationships with and commitment to each other, whereas Catholics have other things that bind them together.

I imagine the Catholics in question are older and more likely to be retired, and hence have more free time. Pentecostals in cities are relatively young, and are kept busy with jobs and families as well as church activities, which may involve community projects. I suppose churches have to prioritise what they do best.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

What subsidy for CofE churches?

CofE churches and congregations have to find all the funding for the Parish Share, which is the monies to pay for the clergy and their support, and any works to the building. If it is a historic building grants from places like English Heritage may be available, but that is true of all other churches.

A few, very few, CofE churches have bequests and legacies that keep them going, but the majority are running just as hand to mouth operations that everyone else is.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes - I think that's certainly the case in terms of the demographic. I'm saying that Catholics are 'better' than Pentecostals ... but I think you're right that Pentecostalism does need closer fellowship and more regular meetings etc etc in order to sustain itself.

It's often been noted that levels of Pentecostal activity - in terms of those things that are distinctively Pentecostal or charismatic - tend to diminish when Penties and charismatics are taken out of their particular context. These things tend only to have 'value' as 'tokens of exchange' as it were in those particular contexts ... you can regard them as currency if you like ... they are legal tender in Pentecostal and charismatic circles because of the value placed upon them ... but outside of those immediate contexts they no longer have currency ...

On the Anglican thing with buildings ... it varies a great deal. Not all Anglican buildings are subsidised, a lot of parishes struggle to maintain their buildings.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cross-posted with Curiosity Killed ...

Yes, I agree. The idea that CofE congregations are sitting pretty with their lovely buildings all paid for and subsidised doesn't accord with what I've seen.

SvitlanaV2 has mentioned this sort of thing a few times, as if somehow the CofE doesn't have the same problems and issues with buildings as non-conformists do. That's news to me and it'd be news to most Anglicans in most settings.

Sure, you'll find legacies and endowments in some places ... but by and large most parishes have to get by without that sort of subsidy.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In terms of what local communities 'want' from churches ... well, that's going to vary considerably from place to place, of course. Someone from our parish runs a very successful Job Club for the long term unemployed and it's kick started an allotment where people can grow vegetables and do something positive and constructive with their time. That's cool.

And the thing is (I have found), that if you start from that point of "what does the local community need/want?", rather than making a presumption about what they need, then you often find that the building or lack of it become nigh on irrelevant. If you've started by saying "what is really needed here?" and got an answer, then you will be able to have a stab at meeting that need, using whatever resources are available (in terms of money, buildings, people etc).

Some medieval and Victorian rural churches are now doubling as Post Offices or libraries.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Curiosity killed....

I did say 'may'!

The CofE seems to subsidise some buildings with tiny congregations so they can stay open. (Robin Gill is one commentator who notes that this happens.) But you can guarantee that if a Methodist church remains open with only a handful of members, that's because they've got a handsome rental income coming from somewhere; it won't have anything to do with support from the local Methodist circuit. The circuits close churches that can't pay their circuit assessment fee at the same time as maintaining a property, no matter how many members a church may have.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned an apparently historic Methodist church in Yorkshire that was allowed to close. If I remember rightly, I was told it had well over 100 members, perhaps more like 200. The congregation didn't re-locate. Why not?

My explanation is that modern Methodists don't see themselves as a 'homeless' people. You generously let your building out to a smaller, less prestigious sect; but being a tenant yourself in someone else's church is another matter entirely! And as for worshipping somewhere that doesn't even look like a church....! It does happen, but I get the feeling that it offends the Methodist sense of order. Maybe it's due to the Methodist lower middle class anxiety about being seen as respectable. (I was going to add a stereotype here about the Pentecostals and CofE, but I'm on safer ground with the Methodists, I think!)

BTW, are there many CofE congregations that rent a worship space from other organisations or other churches? If not, what happens if a congregation has some funds but simply can't afford to maintain their ancient building and pay their share? Is it either closure or a Local Ecumenical Partnership?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Lots of what were CofE churches are now mosques or orthodox churches and if you look there are a fair few up for sale for conversion into houses or whatever else. I am not sure how much call there is for Local Ecumenical Partnerships where churches are not surviving.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The CofE seems to subsidise some buildings with tiny congregations so they can stay open. ...

Not sure that this is about subsidising the buildings so much as about using the parish share system to redistribute resources and subsidise the local presence (of which the building is usually part). Anyway, that's how it works here in (disendowed) Wales, I believe.

[ 20. August 2014, 22:40: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The way the Parish Share works varies from diocese to diocese to meet the needs locally, so different ways that a church could be subsidised:

the Parish Share can be set relatively higher for bigger churches and lower for smaller churches.
Or .. the smaller church could be part of a team of churches which pay a Team Share, where the charge for each church is part of the Team charge, and that team could have chosen to subsidise the smaller churches,
or that smaller church may have an endowment from someone who gave it enough money to keep going or some land or other source of rental income or
it is so picturesque that it has a huge uptake for weddings or film work.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What neither would do - I suspect - is go out and find what the community actually want in terms of spiritual activity - do they know what they want until they see it? - and offer that.

It's easy to say, 'We'll just offer them Jesus' but how does that work? What does it look it on the ground?

We can't divorce ourselves from culture or history. We are what we are through a whole range of influences and developments.

I think perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in my earlier posts. Our culture and history influence everything we do. The work I'm doing here in Kenya involves undoing some unhelpful stuff from the Colonial past for example and we are constantly asking what people really want. Sadly it is often only money that they are after but not always. I think churches here and in the UK have improved in asking communities what they want at a social/ practical level.
Asking people what they want at a spiritual level would be an interesting approach. And how wonderful it would be if when we receive the answer we could say. "Well our church does this which might not work for you, but this church does it this way which you might prefer"
I've had some wonderful encounters when I've listened to random people who have started talking to me outside our cathedral (and coffee shops!)and you're right There is often far more going on with people than we realise.

Back to the building point, all I was trying to say is that whatever our tradition we have building resources (church, public and private) which we use for acts of worship and service which may well change over the years but may not and therein lies the commonality!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you can guarantee that if a Methodist church remains open with only a handful of members, that's because they've got a handsome rental income coming from somewhere; it won't have anything to do with support from the local Methodist circuit.

Or, perhaps, a wealthy individual or two bankrolling it?

This was the situation over many years in our church; this left the congregation not being used to proper giving, as they knew someone would always pick up the bill. But those "someones" are no longer around.

There is also the question of a church renting out so much of its building that they end up not being able to make proper use of it for their own activities, or that the surrounding community perceives it as a School/Community Centre/Youth Centre which graciously allows the Church to meet on Monday mornings. (Jest not, trust me!)

[ 21. August 2014, 07:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Or even Sunday mornings (I'm not aware of any "Second Day Baptists" yet, but I missed the edit window!)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, that all makes sense to me, Mrs Beaky.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Or even Sunday mornings (I'm not aware of any "Second Day Baptists" yet, but I missed the edit window!)

There's your answer. Set up as a Second (Third, Fourth, Fifth...)Day Baptist and use someone else's church midweek.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I see no reason why Evensong - like communion - can't be taken out and about.

Indeed - I used to belong to a church that chanted Cranmer's litany in procession on Rogation Sunday as it processed round the parish boundaries.

I've also belonged to a church which took a statue of Mary around on the first Sunday of May and the Sacrament on the Sunday after Corpus Christi. We always got a little following who joined on the end and came into church for benediction at the end.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Thanks Leo - we don't seem to see that sort of thing happening much these days. I've seen footage from the 1920s of unfeasibly long processions through the streets by Anglo-Catholic churches ... astonishing.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you can guarantee that if a Methodist church remains open with only a handful of members, that's because they've got a handsome rental income coming from somewhere; it won't have anything to do with support from the local Methodist circuit.
Or, perhaps, a wealthy individual or two bankrolling it?

This was the situation over many years in our church; this left the congregation not being used to proper giving, as they knew someone would always pick up the bill. But those "someones" are no longer around.

This is currently happening at my nearest Baptist church, so the minister tells me. But it's much less of a Methodist thing. I can think of two reasons for this. Firstly, Baptists benefit from having a higher proportion of well-paid professionals in their midst. Secondly, Baptists appear to have a greater tradition of sacrificial giving, especially since members are used to paying tithes. Methodists aren't expected to tithe, although individuals are free to do so if they wish.

IME Methodist church leaders are always trying to encourage congregations to give more money to the church. The era of the self-made businessman who gave generously to his local Methodist chapel was over a loooong time ago.

My original point was that despite the similar challenges facing almost all denominations in the country, there are considerable differences in their experiences of coping with buildings. Methodists have closed more churches than other denominations in recent years. (For further detail download: Notes and Quotes regarding rural church closures.) Closure tends to have several negative consequences, and the effects must accumulate when the rate of closure is high. From my perspective as a Methodist church steward, having both experienced and witnessed churches closing due to lack of funds, and seeing and hearing how obsessed Methodists are with their buildings when compared with their focus on mission, ISTM that banking on bricks and mortar for church stability is unwise, and other options should routinely be considered and pursued. But I accept that people in other denominations have slightly different experiences and won't necessarily feel so concerned about this.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks Leo - we don't seem to see that sort of thing happening much these days. I've seen footage from the 1920s of unfeasibly long processions through the streets by Anglo-Catholic churches ... astonishing.

There is a MW somewhere of St Mary's Bourne St, where there was a May procession around the neighbourhood at the start of the service.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It depends where you are, SvitlanaV2. I can think of some Methodist churches where there are a goodly number of 'well paid professionals' and also some Baptist churches in that category. I can think of other Baptist churches which aren't. The nearest Baptist church to us certainly isn't.

There's no general rule of thumb, I don't think, as to the relative affluence of Methodist and Baptist congregations.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'd agree with that, Gamaliel. But the simple point remains: a "well-heeled" congregation, or one with several substantial donors at least, can afford to keep their building going when a less wealthy one cannot.

This is especially true in a "congregationalist" sense where it is not only the building which is paid for by the congregation, but the Minister's stipend (e.g. in Baptist churches). This may well mean that churches which are more strategic (horrible word!) in mission terms end up closing down, while there is duplication of churches in more affluent areas.

There is also the question of financial reserves: our church, for example, was able to fund quite a lot of its activity through the interest we were getting on our invested funds. Of course that source of funding has virtually dropped to zero and we are having to face "paying our way" in real terms!

I knew of a Minister who moved to another church. Just after he arrived, a long-standing argument with two members boiled over and they both left the church (the argument had nothing to do with him). Unfortunately they were the main donors to the church ... its income was slashed and the Minister had to leave because there was no money to pay him.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks Leo - we don't seem to see that sort of thing happening much these days. I've seen footage from the 1920s of unfeasibly long processions through the streets by Anglo-Catholic churches ... astonishing.
There is a MW somewhere of St Mary's Bourne St, where there was a May procession around the neighbourhood at the start of the service.

And not just A-Cs - there was a long tradition of Whitsun Nonconformist Sunday School processions (sometimes these had to be carefully planned so the processions from different churches didn't bump into each other!)

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, very much so- Whit Walks- practised by I think pretty much all the churches, including the CofE, at one time, especially I think in places like Lancashire.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks Leo - we don't seem to see that sort of thing happening much these days. I've seen footage from the 1920s of unfeasibly long processions through the streets by Anglo-Catholic churches ... astonishing.

Both churches I mentioned still do these processions - except that the one that did the BCP Litany now uses something moder modern.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends where you are, SvitlanaV2. I can think of some Methodist churches where there are a goodly number of 'well paid professionals' and also some Baptist churches in that category. I can think of other Baptist churches which aren't. The nearest Baptist church to us certainly isn't.

There's no general rule of thumb, I don't think, as to the relative affluence of Methodist and Baptist congregations.

There is a 'general rule of thumb' if you're talking about a denomination in general! Exceptions, as they say, prove the rule.

I myself know some Methodist congregations that are bigger and richer than some Baptist congregations. But Baptist congregations are bigger, on the whole, and also younger. Baptists are more demographically mixed than Methodists, to judge from what I've read and seen, but as we know 'evangelicals' today are stereotypically middle class; and Baptists are far more evangelical, in general, than Methodists.

Ultimately, since Methodist churches are closing far, far more frequently than Baptist churches (and now for financial reasons, not due to theological infighting or church splits!) it does suggest a missing demographic of well-paid generous givers on the whole, exceptions notwithstanding.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Yes Methodist churches are closing and yes there are expectations about paying assessments which includes provision of ministerial input.

But the circuit CANNOT close a congregation - only the the church council can do that. Often it is a building repair cost that is the final straw, sometimes the minister or circuit may ask them about their future, but the church council is the place that does the deciding.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

On the topic I think it is all on context - is the building a resource (for mission or rent) or a burden? What does it cost to maintain per hour of use?

If you are as church consistently needing to spend 80% of your time fundraising to keep the roof on and not free to use time and talents to being church for the community then it has become a burden.

If yours is the only community space in an estate that can host all sorts of community gathering groups and your own church initiatives then it is an asset.

If like one of my churches which is one room no plumbing so meals and other events are held with the parish church (also loo-less) in the village hall, then it comes down to which is the best venue for any particular activity.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
Yes Methodist churches are closing and yes there are expectations about paying assessments which includes provision of ministerial input.

But the circuit CANNOT close a congregation - only the the church council can do that. Often it is a building repair cost that is the final straw, sometimes the minister or circuit may ask them about their future, but the church council is the place that does the deciding.

I know this. I was once on a church council that had to make such a decision.

What I was saying is that circuits don't engage in any 'redistribution of wealth' to prevent closure from happening. Presumably this could happen in theory via some kind of mutually agreed arrangement, but I've never heard of it.

There seems to be a general acceptance, as you imply, that many buildings are unfit for purpose. I think it's a shame, though, that different ways of keeping congregations together aren't always seriously considered.

It's good to have your input, as a Methodist minister!

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Not all circuits have wealth to redistribute!

And in places we have inherited more buildings than needed as several of the denominations that re- merged into current Methodism had churches in a town etc.

Those overlaps where they faced each other across the main road have long been faced, but there are other matters.

I am very against the idea of centralisation for its own sake (close village chapels in favour of combining resources at the town church which serves the villages as the town does for shopping and all the rest) but we do have tiny congregations in decaying buildings and need to be realistic about the future. We also have small congregations who are effective in mission and being part of their community, and large churches that can be complacent.

It is not easy, but we were not set up to always be in that place and in that way. Early Prim chapels were designed in a way that made conversion to a house later deliberately easy.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
On the topic I think it is all on context - is the building a resource (for mission or rent) or a burden? What does it cost to maintain per hour of use?

Agreed 100%, Avila, with your whole post. I'd just add that some churches' attachment to their buildings means that decisions like these simply cannot be made objectively. The building is a tool; IMO it should not shape and direct how we fulfil our mission in the world, and we certainly should not invest much of our identity, as part of the body of Christ, in our building.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

While I largely agree with SKK, the problems of "listing" and "conservation" are an external pressure or restriction. For instance, we looked at selling up and relocating about 7 or 8 years ago. But our buildings are Listed and we are in a Conservation Area. The result: they can't be pulled down and redeveloped.

This means that they are worth diddley-squat on the market, which in turn means any sale wouldn't give us enough money to build a new, more suitable and more economical building. Moreover, we have to invest money in what we've got simply in order to keep it usable, quite apart from improving the facility.

Yes, there are people who are attached to the building and who can't imagine worshipping anywhere else. But it is not just about that.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I've just been reading an account by Sarah Miles of doing the Ash Wednesday ritual out of doors.

I have also experienced this as an act of repentance for war, outside ministry of defence buildings.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I was saying is that circuits don't engage in any 'redistribution of wealth' to prevent closure from happening. Presumably this could happen in theory via some kind of mutually agreed arrangement, but I've never heard of it.

However, it does happen, I have been an observer on a church council in a circuit where that was happening. The method that is used is that churches central charge took into account income from other sources not just membership. This does not seem much until you realise the congregation I was observing owned significant space in the city centre which it rented out including several shop fronts! It also, due to its history, owned land elsewhere. Its income was considerable and it paid a share that was disproportionate to the size of its congregation.

Indeed once it had rebuilt a church building on one of the other sites, the property and the assets were largely handed over to the circuit. So at least in this case the circuit was being funded in part by the income from this congregation which allowed other congregations to pay less in. I suspect for at least one congregation within the circuit, maybe more, this made a substantive difference to how long they continued.

Jengie

[ 23. August 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Thanks. This is an interesting example.

As Avila says, not all circuits will be in the position to do something like this. For a start, it requires a church with a large property portfolio - probably a Central Mission, or some other untypical set-up. I think many of the Central Missions have gone now, although perhaps the circuits still own the properties that went with them.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Jengie's example sounds like on old Central Hall set up where they were designed to have income support and multi use etc but often small congregation now.

Circuits are not supposed to base assessment (money to run things including funding ministers who are allocated to circuits not churches) on membership alone. Ours is a formula that takes into account members, average sunday attendance, income and reserves. each at different proportions but can't recall at the moment.

In other situations some monies are legacies left specifically to one church, or even one aspect of that church's life - it is tied by the legal wording of Mrs Jones will.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0