Church building funds - wouldn't we be better selling the damn building and meeting in a pub?

[morningpaper]

I belong to a local Church of England parish church which attracts about 50 people a week from a potential parish of 12,000 people.

We have nearly £1 million of building work required to keep the church over the next few years.

The existing parishioners are generally old and gradually dying off. But we keep being asked for more and more time and money to maintain the fabric of the building for 'future generations' (I've no idea where they expect these people to rise up from because I am the only woman of childbearing age and am therefore solely responsible for re-populating the congregation and I've only managed 2 so far)

When I suggest that our heritage is too much for us, people are grossly offended. But what can I say? I don't want to keep wasting time and money on a building that will only be in the hands of the church for a limited amount of time. Frankly I think it would be better if we did just sell it to NatWest.

Anyone else in a similar position?

The CofE is interesting though - lots of people don't 'realise' they need a church until a time of crisis - when Diana died the churches were full, at Christmas the carol services are packed out, when a family member is sick or has died it is often a church that people head for, even if they are not a 'Christian' as such. And these people probably would be more clinical in which 'good causes' should be funded, but when they need it, the church is there.

True about tourism being affected QoQ - I just feel that so much is being spoiled in the UK today - our local city is a good case in point, lots of hideous glass buildings going up so it looks like any other city in the country - that we should try and preserve heritage and uniqueness. And that doesn't just mean churches, it means the things that make people just stop for a moment and think 'That's really lovely'. Likewise I think city gardens should be encouraged (public gardens I mean) because we see so much grey concrete, beauty is just forgotten.

So English Heritage, National Gallery, other Musuems, National Trust, CoE shouldn't get ANY money towards the upkeep of our historic buildings???
OK, here's a test for you. Which bit of the NHS do you think should be cut to pay for churches ?
Tax is one of the biggest causes of firms going to the wall. Which people do you think should lose their jobs for this ?

There is an argument for galleries as part of the tourist industry, though I don't see any reason why they shouldn't charge.
St. Pauls is a tourist site, and makes it's grounds available to locals which is badly needed green space in a built up area. So I'd have no problem with money for this.
But if you look at foreign tourists, their number drops hard once you get away from central London.
If you're going to make the tourist argument then there is little justification for anything outside the circle line, and almost nothing outside the M25.
Actually, if you read surveys on tourism, Madame Tussauds' is way up there, as is the Information Centre at Windscale. Yes you reads that right.
People come for theatre, and yes they come for restaurants.
Culture is a big thing, but actually contemporary stuff they can go and watch or listen to is vastly more important. Also a huge factor is shopping.
Do you suggest we should subsidise shopping malls ?

Thus there may be arguments for subisiding the CoE, but you ain't found one yet.

The idea that there is "little else" in Britain says a lot about your understanding the country you live in.

If we tell the people that 'own' these places that they have to look after the buildings COMPLETELY on their own, many will fall into dis-repair
Nope. Nice thing about the listing laws is that if you don't maintain building they can be taken from you.There is of course poetic justice given how the CoE "acquired" much of it's property.

That's just so untrue that tourists are inconsequential outside the circle line. The church I go to (NOT in London) always tourists in it. Regular coach trips, people just passing through the city - it is never empty. And I think it is one of the reasons they come to the city tbh. The city as a whole would suffer without their boost to the economy.

And like I said before, people do use it for comfort etc, surprising themselves that they have headed towards a church.

Nope. Nice thing about the listing laws is that if you don't maintain building they can be taken from you.

Oh yes - to be given to another organisations that is given subsidies to look after it..........

As a former PCC/Deanery Synod member I've realised that the main reason that the CofE is so keen on its buildings is because they are essential to it maintaining its power. It relies almost entirely on the notion that certain things (e.g weddings, baptisms) are only holy of they take place in their building by their licensed priest or other official. I used to think churches spiritual places but having seen the greed and obsession that people have over bricks and mortar has made me realise that God is better found elsewhere. My mother is helping to raise £100k to pay for an AIDS centre for orphans and the elderly in Cape Town - about the same sum as was spent here by two of the four churches on our rural Benefice recently on 'improvements'. I guess each church is used by maybe 20 people a month. It shames everyone who has anything to do with the Church. As Dietrich Boenhoeffer said, the church can only claim to be the body of God once it divests itself of all its property.