St Mark's Church in Mayfair turned into a food hall

[successstories]

I was quite uncomfortable to see this former place of worship being turned into a food hall.

There was something disturbing about spaghetti and pizza being dished up in front of all the religious objects and imagery (which are very prominent, still in situ and pretty much intact)

Isn't there a Christian organisation that could have ensured this building was preserved for a more suitable use? If this had happened to a Synagogue or a Mosque for example, there would have been outrage.

AIBU?

The other problem with churches being handed over to a charity to use for offices, to a college to use for a library (as has been done in Oxford) is that it actually stops being accessible to the public. Ditto a church that is just shut up because no one will take it on, no one can see the memorials, stained glass etc.

A food hall (or even a bar) actually means that the building (which is part of our heritage) is still available to everyone.

So then the question is, do you want the building to be taken on by someone who will do the conservation work and bear all the high costs (even if the use is not you preferred option) or do you want it to remain unused and eventually likely reach a point where no one can afford to fund the work needed to get it useable again?

Looking at this with all the information provided on this thread, I could probably live with your first option, but I would definitely wish the sacred imagery and objects had been removed and safeguarded somewhere else.

If there is such a thing as a god, I am sure they wouldn't mind people eating. I'm not a Christian so a bit hazy on these things but aren't there stories in the bible about people eating? Bread and fish, and stuff like that?

It doesn't matter if it feels right to you. It's not a church anymore. It's not sacred, its not holy. Your church finished with it a very long time ago. They had no interest in maintaining or restoring it.

Jesus would not be impressed with your stance. He would tell you that the church is the people, not the building. "The most high dwelleth not in temples made with hands".

I have been in a Wetherspoons in a converted church. Surely that must be worse in OPs eyes than the Mercato Mayfair (which I have also been in and had some very tasty ice cream while looking at the alter)

You are extremely inconsistent here. From your viewpoint, it would make more sense to have an issue with a consecrated space being used for beer festivals or any other other commercial enterprise (whether it benefits the roof fund or not) than a place that has NOT been a sacred place for half a century. Surely you can see that? Otherwise it seems like you are more concerned by how things look than how things are.

I'm not a Christian so a bit hazy on these things but aren't there stories in the bible about people eating? Bread and fish, and stuff like that?

Don't be ridiculous, nobody's objecting to people eating 🙄

So eating is OK, but buying food to eat is not.
OK. 🤣

It's about respect, I think. Going back to my point, this would never have been allowed if it was a building that had been used by any other religion.

An Ashram in my home town was bought and then turned into a centre for community classes. It wasn't a charitable donation, they paid market rates.

what are you objecting to? Its not clear.

Otherwise it seems like you are more concerned by how things look than how things are.

I usually try to focus on substance, not form.

But this case was different as the church is so striking and the visual impact so powerful. It gave the impression that the company was profiteering from a place of worship. Maybe it was their intention, maybe it wasn't, we don't know. The fact that they have seemingly decided to sanitise their endeavour and portray themselves as 'do gooders' 'community curators' or whatever is neither here not there. They are a business venture, otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford all this (as PPs have pointed out upthread)

But it's not a place of worship anymore. It was an empty building that is now a good hall.

ITs not a place of worship though, so your entire premise fails.

You do seem very confused about what you're upset about. I also note your failed to retract your earlier offensive statements

Another person massively confused about what's bothering you.

The Bible is pretty clear that its not the big ornate building of a church that matters, it's the people of the congregation.

It's almost like you feel that because people in the past who shared your religion built a beautiful place, it should only ever be used/benefit Christians/christianity?

By that token rich families of the past who built many of our heritage buildings could feel the masses should be excluded from enjoying them forever.

Remember - Christianity is special and important to you, to non religious people religion & religious things aren't accorded a higher level of importance than any other belief, special interest or hobby. This building having been a consecrated church over 50 years ago doesn't imbue it with anything more infinitely special than a lovely old castle wedding venue , to most of us.

I would definitely wish the sacred imagery and objects had been removed and safeguarded somewhere else.

Surely that would have been the responsibility of the CofE when the church was deconsecrated, if it had mattered to them. As they didn't, it would be seen as cultural vandalism by many if subsequent owners had removed or covered these items.

Iconoclasm.

But this case was different as the church is so striking and the visual impact so powerful.

So if it had been a plain church, without bits of gold leaf, it would have been OK?

What I like about this enterprise, is that folk can come in for their craft beer, who would otherwise never step into a church.

The look around at the biblical imagery, and get totally curious about the Christian faith, and want to find out more.

It's another way to telling God's story without words.

Removing the religious imagery would be hiding the light under a bushel.

Removing anything from a Grade I listed building would be illegal.

I mean the owners could try persuading the authorities and consultees that the public benefit of the removal of religious statues outweighs the harm... And certainly there are churches out there that have items in them that were relocated there from other churches - either at closure or because the other church got permission to remove and sell them (often organs and furniture). But statues that are part of the fabric (I am assuming), it would be hard to argue that the need to get rid of them outweighs the impact on the aesthetics of there heritage asset and our understanding of the it's historic development (ie: they are evidence that it was a church and of a particular phase of building work/religious beliefs). An exception might be if they were somehow preventing accessible use of the building but even then you would probably want to relocate within the building.

Conservation is a fascinating field but there is an awful lot of debate over what you preserve, what level of damage is acceptable to keep a building in use, living building v museum/historic record, conservation v restoration. And our approach in England is not necessarily that taken in other countries.

It's a long read but, if anyone is really interested, this Historic England document (or even just the summary on the webpage) is probably the best guide to the theories behind decisions taken about listed buildings in England historicengland.org.uk/advice/constructive-conservation/conservation-principles

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's salad!

Would just like to take a moment to thank some posters, particularly the Jewish ones, I know a lot more about synagogues and modern Judaism thanks to this thread than I knew yesterday! It's really fascinating the way people's movement around a big city affects the placement of places of worship.

Allowed by who? And why not?