To think that the church of england should shut down half of their churches

[ReallyTired]

There aren't enough priests and many churches are in completely the wrong locations to support a congretation. A lot of quaint churches are expensive to maintain.

I feel that some really quaint churches in villages could be made into wedding venues rather than parish churches. I would like to see a situation where anyone can choose to get married at the really pretty church in the lake district with no working congretation.

Even in towns there are too many churches in a short distance. I feel that existing buildings could be used in more imaginative ways that would support the entire community.

I go to church every Sunday. The church is its people not its buildings.
I practice christianity rather than churchanity. I worship a living God rather than a pile of stones/ bricks. I believe that the burden of maintaining a large number of virtually unused church buildings is not the purpose fo the church. I would rather the money on the collection place go to help people rather than maintain buildings.

Our church is part of a benifence of four churches. There are only two full time priests for four churches. The churches are reliant on retired priests to have services at all four churches on a sunday. With attendence windling it seems silly to have four services with a handful of people at each church. There is also an issue that none of the churches attract enough children to run decent children's activities.

"Have you considered all the burials? What would you do with all those corpses?"

Many churches have long cleared their graveyards. It is not an in surmontable problem.

"What about listed building status/conservation areas?"

I don't think that is the Church's problem. Christianity is not about maintaining pretty buildings.

"How would you get planning consent for the change of use?
Who would pay to maintain and repair these complex and expensive buildings? All those tall roofs, buttresses, clocktowers and steeples - think of the cost of scaffoling at that height for even the simplest of repairs."

Who ever chooses to buy them.

"What about the archaeology. Some churches have been in continuous use for hundreds of years, and since our very earliest churches were built on ancient pagan sites of worship some churches are sitting on thousands of years of archaeology. Who would pay for that to be assessed? "

Again, that is not a problem that christianity is concerned with.

Christianity may not be about maintaining pretty buildings, but the C of E is about maintaining historic churches.

And I disagree with you that Christianity isn't concerned with archaeology or history. An awful lot of people are and would be.

You may not feel this way, but there are centuries of historical work that's been carried out by vicars for their parishes. It is a very big tradition. And yes, for some people, that interest in the community and the memories of that community is actually important to their faith. There is a concept called the 'communion of saints,' which means all faithful, living and dead. We don't just forget people.

Obviously, no-one is forcing you to become a history nut. But it is rather hypocriticial, IMO, to start out by claiming you're interested in the good of the community, then to admit it's actually because you personally have a certain kind of faith and aren't interested in anything else that might be for the good of the community and not part of that narrow faith.

And btw, clearing the graveyard of a 'pretty' church is likely to be a huge hassle. If that church is any age at all, unless it's done with proper archaeological work, you've just wiped out history. And I dont' imagine you want to think about clearing the graveyard of a church that's currently being used for burials.

Not terribly 'Christian' to be selfish, I think.

Clearing graveyards generally means moving the gravestones, it does not mean digging up the corpses.

Christianity may not be about dealing with archaeological assessments, listed building consent, scaffolding costs and planning law ... but any prospective buyer will be very invested in assessing those costs. They won't buy the building if it isn't financially useful to them.

And the sad fact is that too many of our lovely quaint churches are such money pits that no one would buy them.

I missed the post where someone suggested it did mean digging up corpses, unless you mean mine about archaeology. Point there is, if you sell the land to a private owner, you've no certainty you'd be able to excavate there. And I'm not sure how easy it'd be to keep control over what people did with the land ultimately (in centuries).

Do you mean vicars? I've never heard a CofE vicar called a priest...

But anyway, lots that are empty are closing and being sold. Rarely do they become community centres, they are converted to housing, offices, shops. The local community doesn't aquire a new public space, it loses a public space it already has.

It is important, is that there's a place for local people to worship, even if there's not a lot of other people to join them. I don't believe in making people commute to church. You might be able to drive or walk a long distance, not everyone can. And everyone who wants to, should have access to a place to worship.

OP do you go to an evangelical church? One with guitars and hand waving?

oh and the buildings are often the location from which people are helped, food banks generally run from church halls. Youth clubs, debt councelling, 'retired people' lunches, toddler groups, even the health visitors round here have clinics in a church hall. There's lots of community work that's done from church halls, without the buildings, these community projects by the congregation couldn't be done. Not all obviously 'outreach', but do bring people into contact with the congregation and can help create links if people want to explore their faith.

Lose the buildings, lose the church's place in the community. If faith is something that just happens in house churches in private, then outreach to the community becomes hard.

You don't need to believe in God to get married in the C of E. There own website says so.

My local church was doing food banks before it was trendy....

And, but seasick, you do need to believe in God to get married in a pretty C of E Church.

Apparently, this is terribly unfair because there would be nothing superficial or unChristian about wanting to be married in a pretty church ... although it is, apparently, unChristian to care about the buildings.

It's a puzzle, I grant you.

I am not a Christian, but I think keeping churches is really important. People should have a local place where they can worship if they want to, and churches can be a real hub of a community. I have seen some that do lots of good work. Getting rid of half our churches would be a real shame. Churches aren't there just to provide a scenic backdrop to weddings I think. There is also no harm in retaining a sense of history. Sorry, this isn't very coherent, but I think I am saying that we should keep our churches!

The church of England is very varied in worship style. Lots of people will drive or walk a bit further to go to a church that worships in their preferred style rather than worship at their local church. Lots of people commute to church as it is.

"And the sad fact is that too many of our lovely quaint churches are such money pits that no one would buy them."

This is the precise problem that the church of england has. Lots of non church goers love the pretty churches, but they don't want to contribute to maintaince. Sadly many of the pretty churches simply don't have the congretation to pay for maintaince. A congretation of three people cannot afford to pay for a priest to take the service or maintain a building. If we want to keep these pretty rural churches then its essential to find a way to make them pay their own way. A pretty church in an urban area is often reliant on its weddings and funeral income. A rural church has no population who is entitled to get married in a particular church.

The present church laws drastically restrict who can get married in a particular church. You can't just phone up the vicer of the pretty church in a tiny village, you have to have a qualifying connection or attend that church or live in the tiny village.

"It is important, is that there's a place for local people to worship, even if there's not a lot of other people to join them. I don't believe in making people commute to church. You might be able to drive or walk a long distance, not everyone can. And everyone who wants to, should have access to a place to worship."

Christians need a certain critical mass of people to have a decent service. Anything smaller than ten people becomes a house group rather than a church service. In fact the early church started off in people's houses.

I thought we had churches so that people could get their children into the local school

No, Christians don't need a critical mass of people.

'Where two or three are gathered together ...'

The C of E closes churches if the congregation is too low, but that's because of the cost, not because it's not Christian.

I'm sorry, but I think you should educate yourself in the faith you profess to believe before you start trying to lay down the law about it.

I'm off now, this thread is getting on my nerves.

ReallyTired implied when she posted:
""Have you considered all the burials? What would you do with all those corpses?"

Many churches have long cleared their graveyards. It is not an in surmontable problem."

that she thinks that they also move the corpses when they clear the graveyards.

MaryWestcott - a priest is an ordained minister, a vicar is the person who is given the charge of a specific church. (it's a lot more complicated than that, as yo ucan be a Priest-in-charge of a church without being the vicar)

Ah, thanks. I did miss poly's post.

nice to be useful instead of a complete numpty

I can kind of see where you're coming from - I'm an atheist, and I do like looking at pretty churches, but I don't think the COfE should be responsible for maintaining all of them if it doesn't have the cash.

But they are such an important part of our country's history; often the only traces left of the lives of everyday people.

Don't know if National Trust/English Heritage would take them on?

LRD, I don't think she meant the church service would be theologically inquorate, (!) just that it changes the dynamic with so few people. Hymns wouldn't really work. A sermon delivered to two people becomes a monologue...

That's true, boul, and I take your point.

It's just I take exception to someone playing holier-than-thou about not worshipping stones (as if the rest of us do?), while dismissing other people's feelings.

It's not pleasant to be told such-and-such is 'not Christian,' and I think she could do with a reminder than her perferred form of worship does not in fact define Christianity either.

I knew there were restrictions on who could get married in a church, but does that also mean there are are similar restrictions on who can have funerals in church too? Is living in the area enough to be able to have a church funeral if you want it?

Sorry for the slight tangent that this thread has made me think of!

Anyway, I should take my own advice and shurrup.

LRDtheFeministDragon

Why don't you educate me in the christian faith. Being a christian is about having a relationship with Jesus. It isn't essential to go to go to a conventional church to be a christian. Many church services happen in all kinds of locations.

There is nothing in the bible that tells us to maintain pretty churches. In fact it could be argued that churchanity is a formal Idolatry similar to the Isalites worthship Baal with an idol of a golden bull.

At the moment the church subsidises churches with low attendence. I am happy for wealthier churches to subside churches with plenty of people which are in low income areas. However there is no point in subsidising an almost empty building. I would rather the church quietly funds people that helps the homeless or those fleeing domestic violence or those recovering from addiction.

The pattern of church attendence has changed. The way that people access christian teaching is changing. There is no particular reason why christian teaching has to be accessed at 9.30 on a sunday morning. For example some churches fund a youth work to run an after school club where children can have christian teaching.

You started out talking about the Church of England. Which is a conventional Church. It is actually quite hard to go to the C of E without going the C of E, just as it's hard to insist on a big congregation while insisting it's unnecessary, and to insist everyone should value pretty wedding venues while also not valuing pretty wedding venues.

Yet, you seem to manage it, don't you?

Perhaps you should consider why that is.

Btw, some Christians actually capitalize the word, too. Rather than the word idolatry. And no, that's not me nit-picking, that's me feeling that you aren't the slightest bit interested in Christianity or the C of E, except when you want to find fault.