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 feel it would be hugely disrespectful to deconsecrate and get rid of churches unless it's absolutely necessary (sometimes it is), and I think getting rid of the 'pretty' ones to provide wedding venues 'because you only get married once' is beyond disrespectful."

Why is it a disrespectful use of a church to use it for marriages? The Bible is actively in favour of marriage. The alternative is that the building falls apart due to lack of maintaince. Is it better to have a disused church as a museum piece. I think that every church should be in active use. I would rather that a church was used for weddings than allowed to sit and rot. Beautiful buildings should be used enjoyed and maintained.

LRDtheFeministDragon The communion of saints a greater thing. We are unified with people who have gone before us who share our beliefs. The communion of saints are those people who are already in the kingdom of heaven. The dead do not need a church building.

Yes, the Bible is in favour of marriage. In fact, it's so in favour of marriage it advocates polygamy, IIRC.

The Church of England, OTOH, advocates marriage as one of the ways of participating in the Church community.

The alternative is not that the buildings fall apart.

You have misunderstood (deliberately?) my post about the communion of saints. I did not suggest that the dead need a church building, but that we owe them and their beliefs respect. I do not feel that respect of the dead extends to selling off churches as pretty wedding venues.

Can you explain why it is you seem to believe that it's unfair people can't be married in pretty venues (thus implying this is terribly important, which, frankly, is pretty shallow), and at the same time, you come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who values churches as buildings?

It seems a teeny bit hypocritical.

How come the early Christians didn't adopt polygamy then? Was it the cultures Christianity filtered through that influenced it? Genuinely curious. Is monogamy mentioned nowhere in the new testament and the other writings in the bible?

Oh - sorry, I was being a little bit pointed, because the C of E isn't all about the Bible, so it isn't surprising it doesn't have Church Upkeep 101 in there.

But, yes, Christianity was filtered through other cultures. Most of the references to polygamy are in the Old Testament, which is a very different culture. But then, also, Christianity itself changed.

Lots of the bits on marriage that proved influential are in the New Testament, in St Paul's writings.

LRD. I take your point about the status of a burial spot and maybe the area not turning into a nightclub/bar but remain attached to dignified surroundings. However, many of the people in the older pre-reformation churches/cathedrals graveyards (and in the buildings, in some instances) would not have been C of E anyway. They would have been the Catholic congregation of what had been built as a catholic place of worship. The changed denomination of the church wouldn't (entirely?) reflect their beliefs anymore anyway. That ship would already have sailed for them.

I'm not sure I agree. I think part of being C of E is about acknowledging Catholicism came before and not just tearing it all down. That may be idealistic.

www.churchcare.co.uk/churches/church-buildings-council/who-s-who/churches-conservation-trust

I would hate to see half of them closed down Also, I find it really strange when churches are turned into something else. It just seems so...wrong.

Philip Larkin says it all for me.

It will happen in time anyway, regardless of what people feel about it.

Throughout history all sorts of buildings have been demolished/modified/changed hands, with a corresponding change in purpose. There are many churches that have already become private residences or commercial premises.

In the past, graveyards were cleared in order to make room for new burials. More recently graveyards are cleared for other reasons, a common one being the addition of a cesspit. As long as there are sensible planning regulations in place, as long as Home Office regulations are followed regarding the treatment of burials, and as long as everything is properly recorded for posterity, churches don't require any special consideration over and above any other building.

I am an atheist, but I love churches. I think they have historical and cultural significance and often display wonderful architecture. I'd like to see them preserved. I see that preservation as being far more likely in the hands of a private owner who can afford the upkeep than an impoverished rural congregation whose tower-saving fundraising efforts consistently fall short of what is required.

they do need to cut down some of the churches, and in fact they are

but as a CofE your suggestion we keep quaint ones open for scenic weddings! yukky

and as CofE are mainkly self funded, its really noones business

all huffy now!

"Can you explain why it is you seem to believe that it's unfair people can't be married in pretty venues (thus implying this is terribly important, which, frankly, is pretty shallow), and at the same time, you come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who values churches as buildings? "

Its not about fairness. Most people like to have somewhere pretty to marry be it at the top of a mountain, a church or beautiful castle. I feel that relaxing the church of england rules on who can get married in a particular would help rural churches. At the moment couples often attend church once a month for at least six months to get on the electrol roll so that they can get married at a church of their choice. Why is allowing a couple to pay extra to get married at a church of thier choice without attendence or residency requirements any worse.

"I am an atheist, but I love churches. I think they have historical and cultural significance and often display wonderful architecture. I'd like to see them preserved. I see that preservation as being far more likely in the hands of a private owner who can afford the upkeep than an impoverished rural congregation whose tower-saving fundraising efforts consistently fall short of what is required."

Exactly! Churches need revenue to be maintained. The alternative to an improvished rural congregation trying desperately to raise money is for the church to exercise its rights to use chancel liablity. Many churches are reluctant to use chancel liablity laws to force nearby residents to pay for repairs as it is felt to be immoral and unfair.

Do you think this is OK?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-24627517

I don't know what kind of Christians you know who have been getting married at the top of a pretty mountain, but I suggest you go chat to your vicar about whether he or she thinks that's terribly important. Hint: the answer will probably not be 'yes'.

I think the Gorleston church got it wrong, and should have realized that calling on historic rights is probably going to upset people, especially in an area that may not be thriving economically.

I am not quite clear how it would be better to sell of churches to give rich people nice wedding venues.

Do you not understand the downsides of this at all?

"I don't know what kind of Christians you know who have been getting married at the top of a pretty mountain, but I suggest you go chat to your vicar about whether he or she thinks that's terribly important. Hint: the answer will probably not be 'yes'. "

LRDtheFeministDragon

Christians tend to choose their church to get married in. However our priest does recongise the validity of a civil cermony on top a mountain. If you choose to get married in a civil cermony at the top of a mountain then you wouldnt be able to get married in a church as well. You could have a service of blessing though.

You don't have to be a christian to get married in a church of england church. All you need is for one of the couple to live in the parish. This goes back to the days when a church was the only place you could get married in. In victorian times jews had to get married in a church even though church attendence was no longer complusory. Registry office weddings only came into existance in 1837.

Plenty of non christians get married in church of england churches every year because they live in the parish. Other people attend church so that they can get on the electoral roll. Why do you find it upsetting for people to pay to get to choose which church they marry in.

How should Gorleston church raise the money it desperately needs for repairs? We are agreed that calling on historic rights and using chancel liablity is not the right way to raise the cash. Praying for a miracle is unlikely to work. Sadly churches cannot live on air. If Gorleston could raise more money through weddings then it would not need to ask residents for money.

Having a business head is not against christianity. Jesus got angry with money changers because they were cheating people. Judas sold Jesus to his death for 30 pieces of silver. Hiring out a church for a wedding is not comparable.

I'm sure your priest does recognise the validity of the service. So do most people. That's not the debate.

If you are so terribly worried, donate. Raise money. Whatever you like. But don't be surprised not everyone agrees with your ideas here.

No one has compared selling churches (we were talking selling, weren't we, or has your mind wandered since you wrote the OP?) to selling Jesus. It boggles my mind that you need that spelling out.

One of the Churches in my village has just been sold and is being made into a Nursery. it's too small a plce to support as many places of worship as it does so fair enough BUT thinking on the other Church, I can just imagine if people said 'many Churches practise grave clearance'- well, I am not sure I'd be happy to explain that to the parents of the 3 day old baby buried there last year. Indeed, a Church was demolished back home when my dad was small (fiftieis probably) and people still get upset about lost graves that are under the A38.

I didn't marry in a Church as my husband is agnostic, I prayed a lot beforehand and didn't feel it was any less of a rite and religious vow (and it's our 14th anniversary today). It was as beautiful a venue as a Church, a rural water mill. Not marrying in a Church does not have to mean marrying somewhere hideous, although certainly I can understand villagers and people in a community wanting to be married at it's hub.

YY, I agree - there are lots of beautiful and meaningful places to get married without it having to be a church.

I do think that a nursery seems better than making it into a wedding venue. The one is at least practical and allows the building to carry on being part of a community. The other just seems crass.

Er, wow. This is one of the more peculiar interesting axes I have seen being ground on AIBU recently.

I agree that buildings can become a bit of a millstone around the neck of all kinds of institutions, but I find it really interesting that at the heart of this, you obviously don't value having worship that is grounded in a local community, corporate, relational context - from your suggestion that small congregations should be shut down and that people should commute to church. Personally, it is totally central to my understanding of the Gospel that my spiritual life has to be mainly lived out in the community of which I am physically a part. That's why I think the local qualifying connections for marriage in a church are actually really important from a spiritual pov.

Having a physical, active place of worship in every community in the country (or near enough every community) is I think also an important part of the CofE's public witness, and I'd hate to see that being eroded in favour of commuter churches.

If you're going to be able to love your neighbour, I actually think it's more important to suck up differences in worship style and actually worship with your neighbour than to commute to somewhere that provides an all singing all dancing worship experience. That's why having churches that are based on real physical communities, rather than on a community in someone's head of who the "real" Christians are, has always been an important facet of Christianity and will continue to be so.

Also worth being aware of what else a community can lose with a Church (and indeed, places that lose Churches can often be the same ones that lose schools).

Ours doesn't have a hall, and the village massively loses from it- plenty of people have given up trying to run groups because of a sheer lack of venues (it was a disability sibling support group I could not find a base for). However, back home the hall I attended groups at housed brownies / cubs, women's groups, older people's lunch clubs and was recently used as emergency housing for the people evacuated from the worst of the Somerset flooding. The really important stuff.

Our local 'pretty' churches are used for tons of stuff besides talking to God. One of them hosts a hugely popular monthly folk music event where the local publican sets up at the back of the nave and everyone sits in the pews with a pint in one hand

You are wrong by the way, Jewish people did not have to get married in C of E Churches before civil registration, just as Quakers also did not. It was other non-conformists and Roman Catholics who did.

Thanks for correcting that, mummytime. Jews and Quakers specifically exempted from the provisions of the Clandestine Marriage Act 1753, so definitely wouldn't have married in Church. [An issue arose at our wedding, which is why we had to check the point!]

If reallytired is now changing her suggestion to C of E churches should be able to hire themselves out for weddings of people unconnected with the church in order to make money, then you should consider the situation of the Church in Wales.

Their rules are far more relaxed than the C of E about who can marry where - to the point that pretty much if the vicar agrees then it's game on. Wales has innumerable pretty churches, and yet despite this openness the Church in Wales remains as poor as a church mouse.

English couples are not flocking over the border to fulfil their dreams of a quaint church wedding (religion-lite).

Supply and demand. And profitability. I really don't think really tired has given any thought to the money aspects of her suggestions.

The Church in Wales (unfettered by rules about who can marry in them) can supply weddings, but not nearly enough couples demand such weddings so the church does not make any sort of profit.

Alternatively there should be an alternative of the National Trust whose role is to manage the fabric of the CofE's churches

Err, has no one heard of the Churches Conservation Trust, or the Friends of Friendless Churches ?

They are both doing just that- preserving old churches and opening them up to be visited, but at the same time maintaining the history of the building. In reality there are loads of churches the CofE would like to hand over to the CCT, but not all can be accepted.

I like to see churches used as churches, but if there is no alternative I would rather they were used for some other purpose, rather than lost altogether through demolition.

I love the word 'flummery' though, I am going to see how many times I can get it into conversation tomorrow!!!

"The Church in Wales (unfettered by rules about who can marry in them) can supply weddings, but not nearly enough couples demand such weddings so the church does not make any sort of profit."

I suppose the Church in Wales has not advertised the fact that anyone can get married in their churches. Also people generally want a church in reasonable distance of home. Wales has a fairly small population to support a huge number of churches.

I am sure that there are lots of ways that beautiful buildings can be used. Personally I think that demolishing churches would be sad, but we need to find a way of making them work as buildings.