to be really quite disgusted with the Church?

[CopperHandle]

Visited Norwich Cathedral and the place was plastered in begging signs asking for donations. They were boasting that it costs almost £4000 a DAY to run the building, not including major repairs which regularly run into six figures in a year.

For an institute that preaches charitable giving, putting others before self etc etc is it not massively hypocritical to run in such a way that is so incredibly costly?
£4,000 a day for a single building... so there are more than 80 cathedrals in the UK - just on this alone - how many people could be helped with this amount of money?!

AIBU to think this is massively hypocritical and, well, just plain wrong?

I'm a church minister and there is always a tension between the amount of money it costs to keep and maintain buildings and what we are called to do as Christians. Increasingly, it makes sense to close older buildings and either unite congregations or to use resources more creatively to build new, more energy efficient buildings which can be shared with the others in the local community. Or share existing buildings - like schools, other churches, community halls etc.

Buildings such as ancient cathedrals which often have a civic use and importance are a particular problem, and I've never ministered in one of these. I do though, think that there is an argument to be made for them being funded by the civic authorities and communities who very often are the ones who most want to keep them open, while being content to let a dwindling congregation deal with the financial strain and burden of doing so.

And yes, it can and very often is a distraction and diversion of resources from other activities. But places of worship are important, for many different reasons - some more emotional than practical, and there really are no easy answers.

In my previous charge, I was based in a visually unattractive, flat-roofed 1960s building which had leaked from the moment it was open, and when I was there, I regularly arrived and spend the first hour or so of my day emptying buckets of rainwater which had come through the roof, mopping up and carefully replacing the buckets.

In that decrepit building, we fed the poor, homeless, marginalised and addicted for free, worshipped with and fed those whom many people would shun, despise or ridicule, helped with and gave rent-free or low-rent accommodation to charities who help and/or are run by people with a range of disabilities and life challenges. We were also actively involved with a local church charity to assist homeless people, and assist those in prison and on release from prison.

Church buildings do cost money to keep, but that doesn't mean that keeping the roof on is the only thing that congregation are doing.

Cathedrals are important in the tourism of many cities, especially Canterbury and York. The history that happened in those buildings, their dominance of the city's townscape, the architectural and artistic heritage: any of those individually makes them a reason to visit the town, and that keeps the shops, pubs and restaurants busy, so keeping people employed.

And as a PP observed upthread, people are the one thing of which there is an endless supply. Few of us will be remembered once everyone who knew us is dead. Feel free to flame me as a heartless cynic but after doing my taxpaying duty to fund the state, the NHS and the social security spending it feels necessary, I want to spend my charitable donations on causes that contribute to education, the arts and culture.

I'm sure there is a middle ground between keeping a building open for a wander and religious services at the cost of £4000 a day and demolishing it.

it isn't just used for wandering around and religeous services though, is it, it is a concert venue, a conference centre, a music school, an educational centre, a library, a contact centre, a venue for baby groups, toddler groups, children's groups, a coordination centre for schools and universities, an admin centre for the diosis, a pastoral centre, all non profit making, The premises are used for all sorts of things by all sorts of people, it is a community centre.

I've never seen it in that way, my impression has always been that cathedrals are two places at once and that's reflected in their, for want of a better term, programme of events.

Their local function is to host services that are free to all, provide community services like soup kitchens or equivalent (which aren't always highlighted in explicit detail in the more historical/architectural visitor guides) and so on. The congregation probably donate to collections and appeals as they would in any other church.

But then around that, sometimes literally, is their visitor experience which usually focuses on the architecture and history, and has to be up to standard. That will mean paying for more cleaners because more muddy feet are tramping through, lighting and electricity that shows off the interesting bits rather than just stopping the hall from being dark, printing leaflets, maintaining loos and cafes to keep up with other visitor attractions, even paying for more bin collections.

And yes, you can argue that the congregation are lucky to have the financial support of visitors, but equally a lot of people are indeed keen to visit these places and expect those extras that a church wouldn't need otherwise.

I don't have a personal stake in this, by the way! Just based on the occasional visit and working on budgets for a tourist attraction many moons ago.

Good post seeingadistance

We must treasure these beautiful old cathedrals in my opinion. However, the church is well known to be one the largest real estate owners though, perhaps they could start selling some of this real estate to help fund these buildings.

If the building is open every day - then that actually helps the building. It doesn't get too cold or damp, and gets a good airing. Also if there are people there every day then someone will spot problems.

I actually think there is far more to complain about large churches being closed all the time. They create a dead space around them, and lots of shadowy nooks for crime to happen.
Churches can be insured to open every day, but they have to take special steps. This includes sending most "treasures" away for most of the year often to the local Cathedral for safe keeping, my local Cathedral's treasury is very empty and Christmas and Easter.
The local Cathedral is also a good place to publicise and even collect for things like the local foodbank. It is also one of the few places around that can get the "Great and the Good" including our local MP to attend and then be informed about local needs and charities.

I love how some people who have nothing to do with the church should have a point of view about what the church does with its own buildings and how the church spends its money.

If the church sells its real estate, it could fund church buildings for a while but then what? Eventually the proceeds of the sale will be used up and then there won't be any money or any real estate but there will still be old churches to maintain.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to reconcile the conflicting demands of buildings v ministry, congregational needs v secular interest in buildings etc

Maybe not sell their real estate but lease out for a regular income of rent.

If we accept that Norwich Cathedral is a stunning example of architecture and our national heritage then it doesn't matter who owns it: if people want to visit it then they should be able to. Norwich has decided to eschew and entrance fee so that anyone can enter. Kudos to them.
What this means is that they need to solicit donations: Fountains Abbey is a derelict abbey where only the ruins and park are maintained as a non-consecrated historic site: open to visitors and run by the National Trust. They charge £15 per adult to visit. They have no outreach, no community involvement, no charitable deeds and are purely a tourist resort/preserved site.

I wonder how the average voluntary contribution is at Norwich Cathedral, for comparison. How much did your party contribute OP? What did you think was fair to visit this well maintained stunning building/architectural example?

You assume there is a market for leasing out at a rate that can maintain the building.

Maybe not sell their real estate but lease out for a regular income of rent.

but they do, look at their website, their biggest income comes from renting out business premises on the cathedral property

I can't imagine anyone wanting to lease out a Worship space and adhere to all the regulations that comes with it. They would never get their heads around the Faculty process.

The worst experience I've had in a church was at Westminster Abbey a good ten years ago. I'd gone along to attend choral evensong, which interested me as I was in a chapel choir at the time and we regularly sang evensong.

On the way out of the abbey after the service I paused to look at a painted triptych in a side chapel and was ushered out by a verger who told me in so many words that if I wanted to look at it I would have to go outside, queue up and pay to come back in. I'm not sure that's what the artists who created the devotional artworks in the building had in mind.

YABU. You chose to visit. Donate what you would reasonably expect to pay for admission, or what you can afford.

Norwich Cathedral is lovely, with modern facilities and friendly staff.

I love how some people who have nothing to do with the church should have a point of view about what the church does with its own buildings and how the church spends its money.

I presume that you only have ano opinion on things that you have a direct relationship with then?
No opinion on foreign politics then?

I love how some people who have nothing to do with the church should have a point of view about what the church does with its own buildings

So long as the CofE is the state church, with attendant privileges, every citizen of the country has a right to have a POV about its behaviour.

YABVU

People don't just give money normally if they are not asked.

Copper. They rent many houses in the quadrant and also are involved with Norwich school. The area they own is huge. They are good landlords by the way.
The donation desk is very low key between and exhibition area and the cathedral body and more like an information desk. It doesn't demand money. As for regular Sunday services. The 10:30 Sunday service is usually full - Christmas and high days are packed. They have many non religious events that are FOC from musical concerts to science fairs. It is a stunning beautiful building and well worth a visit regardless of choosing to donate or not.

I'm sure the Church would rather like to be free of its established status.

I'm sure the Church would rather like to be free of its established status.

Are you? Based on what evidence?

If you judged everything on 'how else that money could be spent on something else' the country would be a wasteland. You could say it with anything!

Caspar I have had similar bad experience with Westminster abbey. And as well as that, I went to a horrible Christmas service there where the vergers were incredibly rude to everyone and basically managed to make the congregation feel like we were a huge inconvenience and that they were doing us a big favour by letting us be there to worship. It was years ago now but really stayed with me and made me feel if this is how the 'top churches' treat their worshippers, something has gone wrong with the CoE at institutional level.

The vergers will have seen it all before.