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?

Ditto. And the same to those who put in about mosques and gurdwaras as well.

I also like that OP has tried their absolute best to get some froth going, in several different directions, but there's 11 pages here of people absolutely not 'aving it.

Well, as the answer to the OPs original question Isn't there a Christian organisation that could have ensured this building was preserved for a more suitable use? seems to be 'No' (which is entirely reasonable - the odd thing really is wtf Christianity ever got into lavish buildings and symbols in the first place) ... maybe she should try founding one?

Or alternatively, she could just find somewhere else to eat.

Had the OP not dog whistled this would happen with other religions - this thread would have died ages ago. I for one am glad she inadvertently promoted the wonderful Mercato Metropolitano and their wonderful music offering that is co-hosted in their venues the Temple of Art and Music my all-time favourite music org ever. Life goes on...

mercatometropolitano.com/

thetempleofartandmusic.com/

Had the OP not dog whistled this would happen with other religions

I don't know why you are still going on about this dog whistling silliness.

If you want to go full on with your buzzword nonsense, some may be offended that others are profiteering from Christian culture and regard this as 'cultural appropriation'. And they would probably be have a point.

It is not cultural appropriation or profiteering from Christianity. It is the preservation of a legally recognised heritage asset (because listing is a statutory status) in line with church of England rules for the deconsecration and sale of church buildings, parliamentary legislation regarding alterations to listed buildings, and conservation principles as outlined by Historic England and other heritage organisations.

It is the preservation of a legally recognised heritage asset

Yes, I understand what you explained from a financial perspective, and I can see the rationale.

I was just trying to put out there how this would be viewed in a different context by those quick to accuse of 'dog whistling

Why haven't you apologised for your repeated lies about "if this were a mosque or synagogue" now they've been shown to be blatantly untrue?

You don't understand what "cultural appropriation" means.

Or "profiteering".

But you were wrong. People provided evidence of your mistake. So are you going to retract it?

some may be offended that others are profiteering from Christian culture and regard this as 'cultural appropriation'. And they would probably be have a point

What is christian culture and how are they profiteering from it?

And considering how long the churches profiteered from literally everyone, wouldn't it be about time, even were it true, which it obviously is not?

Yes. As a Jewish fourth-generation Londoner, I've felt a lot less comfortable in my home city and country over the past few years.

It's good to see that there are still a lot of people who don't buy into the resurgent racism.

Why haven't you apologised for your repeated lies about "if this were a mosque or synagogue" now they've been shown to be blatantly untrue?

I'm not going to apologise.

Posters have explained that buildings for other religions may not be deemed sacred to them, fair enough, I didn't know this. Now, if any other sacred element of their religion was treated with such disrespect there would definitely be outrage.

You're not going to retract or apologise for a complete lie that you put in the op and then repeated even though you've been given many many examples that prove you wrong?

Well, I guess at least that shows us even more clearly what your agenda is.

So you're doubling down, even though you are clearly wrong.

And abandoned deconsecrated church is NOT a sacred element of your religion. So just stop with the bullshit and go and learn about your own religion, since you are clearly confused about it.

Some people can't cope with change.

faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html

Take a look at this survey, OP. Churchgoing in Britain fell from almost 12% to 5% between 1980 and 2015. From the same website: "UK Church membership has declined from 10.6 million in 1930 to 5.5 Million in 2010, or as a percentage of the population; from about 30% to 11.2%. By 2013, this had declined further to 5.4 million (10.3%). If current trends continue, membership will fall to 8.4% of the population by 2025."

Most churches in this country are pre-WW2. All over the country there are buildings which are surplus to requirement. Close to where I lived, two congregations merged as the suburb could not sustain 2 churches. Churches all over the UK are empty and more are emptying every year. Who is supposed to maintain all of these empty buildings? Once the minister and congregation has left, it's just a building like any other. OP would clearly prefer to see these churches slowly decaying and falling into ruin rather than being repurposed.

There are churches near me which have been turned into a climbing centre, a MOT workshop and garage, houses, theatre practice space, and lots of other uses.

And some of Harry Potter was filmed in Gloucester Cathedral. How utterly DISRESPECTFUL. 🙄

I think Christianity lost any sacredness it had when decades ago the Vatican started selling Jesus snow globes.

There is a former synagogue in Wales that is a Lighter Life centre, so you are talking complete and goading bollocks. I am culturally Jewish

OP: Other religions former places of worship would be treated differently (see better) than the way we treat Christians former places of worship

MN: No, that’s not true (including examples)

OP: Well, if other religions did find it offensive, then their (theoretical) feelings would be treated with more respect than Christians feelings

That’s a hell of a reach

It is a well known phenomenon that when consecrated churches make changes to allow them to do more community activities/different forms of worship/have a building that can be rented to provide income, there will be complaints from people who go to the church only for carol service/wedding/funerals. They will complain because a church 'ought' to look a particular way (generally how it looked in the 19th century) and it is disgraceful it is being changed. They won't regularly donate money or volunteer to help look after the building.

The churchwardens and congregation who actually have to use the building for 21st century worship and raise money for its upkeep, usually know why flexible seating, toilets, cafe serveries etc are needed and, even if they have some qualms, recognise it is the only way to keep their church open and in good repair.

My point being that this also applies to redundant churches. It is all very well being aggrieved but if you aren't forming a trust to preserve the building, then why should other people do that for you rather than find an alternative use?

I posted a while back saying that you get more ridiculous with each post.
Have to say I’m quite impressed that you’re keeping the run going 🤣

I've been in a Wetherspoons that used to be a church/chapel.

I'd far rather they were used in any way possible than left to rot or be demolished. I'm not religious, but I enjoy architecture, and feel it should be preserved.

"Posters have explained that buildings for other religions may not be deemed sacred to them, fair enough, I didn't know this. Now, if any other sacred element of their religion was treated with such disrespect there would definitely be outrage."

Please stop drawing specious comparisons with other faiths and what they hold sacred.

This is not a sacred element of anything, anyway. It has been deconsecrated. You say you feel the way you do because it still looks very "church". Yes, it is a very churchy looking church (I know what I mean) but that does not make it any more sacred (now) than somewhere less visually striking. Some of the little "friendless" churches have architectural and historical importance and were places of worship for well over 1000 years, not 150. I very, very much doubt you would be so exercised by any change of use for them.

So if something completely different happened some people may be unhappy with it?

I think that’s true of most things.