Do you think the CofE has a future?

[carlajean]

We live in a rural parish, where all the churches' energy is spent keeping the building up, which is much too large for the congregation. I feel that the church is fatally handicapped in many rural parishes by this responsibility. a second issue is that the design of the church makes it difficult to adopt alternative forms of worship. lastly, the congregation are mostly old, and finding it progressively more difficult to do much.
I know this sounds like a litany of woe, and, from other posts, can see that there are vibrant churches out there, but, from the perspective of my parish, see little hope for the Church in it's present form.
Over the next decade or so, I think there will have to be some drastic decisions made and I think many churches will have to be closed, but can't see what the Church will do with them. unlike chapels, they can't be easily converted into housing.

Yes I think there is no real place for church now and the churches are so big and can't be used for anything else. My church has a lot of community support and are not all old but even some services are very low turned out. Went to a christening recently in a rough part of outer London and felt really sorry for the old lady who made some announcements to say she had to cancel a meeting as only 1 person turned up. I think young people look at church as weird and boring, and I only like it for the community really and dh hates going. Not really sure there's an answer, think it will just either come back in trend or phase out?

I think Praps the church should be open more and not just have the big service and communion early on Sunday mornings, it doesn't appeal to people's lifestyles anymore. I've always think that c of e is stuck in Victorian times. Do clergy do enough for people who need prayer and help?

the clergy I've come across work incredibly hard, but too much of the energy of the members is taken up, as I said before, propping up the building. we have a beautiful church, but I would rather worship in a school room or someone's house, as earlier Christians did, so that we had more energy to spare for the important stuff.
Another problem, IMO. is that the Church is so desperate for clergy, it ordains people who could be helping in their home church. This has happened twice locally.

What about Fresh Expressions of church.

www.freshexpressions.org.uk/

I feel sure the church of England and the church in general has a bright future, but it may need to adapt a bit to be the church of people today, what people today need. In doing so it would serve its purpose so much better. I also think some old building will be lost sadly, but it is not Christians' responsilbility to maintain and up keep old buildings for the sake of them. Sometimes a group will come in from a nearby area to church plant into an old building and bring the congregation to life. But i do think the church (myself included) will need to learn to do things in a new way. We will move from maintenance to mission, and it will be good for us all.

Also in rural areas where there are few cafes, shops or post offices could churches adapt to house vital services Monday to Friday, social activities and worship at weekends?

We should not be handicapped by our old building.

fwiw I think the answer could be to make the body of the church into a secular area, for concerts, badminton etc and keep the area by the altar for religious purposes. this, after all, is how church buildings were used in the past.
but I suggested that at the PCC meeting and it was rejected.

Yes I think it has a future, but it is unlikely to be the same as its past and that is one of the challenges. I've been part of Fresh Expressions of Church since before it had a name and part of that is about reimagining what church is and might be. Within the inherited church there are strong strands of messy church, cafe church and Alpha that add news things to the mix and mean that church today is not the same is church 50 years ago but sometimes the change is so slow it seems as if it hasn't happened. Feels like that in PCC sometimes!

One of the challenges of leadership is managing that change. If you sign up to the idea of paradigm shift then culturally we are coming out of modernity and into something else. No one quite knows how that is going to shake out but the church has lasted 2000 years and will continue. Now discerning when we hold onto something because we have always done it or let it go is hard. Sometimes, always having done it is a a good reason to keep it and sometimes it isn't. As a leader you will upset someone whatever you do (or don't.)

carlajean I like your suggestion of using the church space for other things, why did the PCC reject it? Migh they have wanted the activities to have some spiritual content? Or if not spiritual then simply fellowship? Were you suggesting renting out the space or letting others use it or using it to attract other in? Just curious. You might find this interesting. I have not read it all.....

www.freshexpressions.org.uk/guide/about/principles/communities/bridge

"Some Sundays in each year are devoted simply to being together. These happen on 'low Sundays' around Christmas, Easter and the summer. They may involve playing games, BBQ, going on a treasure hunt, or a day out with a picnic, but they always involve food."

It would make perfect sense to use the church building as a general purpose village hall the rest of the week and that way pay for its upkeep. It's probably already being done in some places.

But you know what will happen if you try to make that a regular thing across the church. You will get some saying "but we must ensure that the Wednesday table tennis doesn't allow gay players and if the Samaritans are using it at night they mustn't give any advice to people getting abortions".

So no, the CofE is doomed to sink without a trace because it's holding tight to a big old heavy anchor and it will just not let go.

I was suggesting to the PCC that it be used as an extension to the village hall, with the altar end kept for services. the problem was partly because, if the pews were removed, the heating would have to be rerouted, as it is under the pews, but still proud of the floor.
however, I believe the real reason was that the people who are committed to the church, and go to meetings, are traditionalists, and don't want change.
so..that is their prerogative, but the physical nature of the building limits how worship can be held and we have no young people.
A charismatic leader would probably work wonders, but there aren't enough to go round.
I've just stepped down from being a churchwarden, and, towards the end, it felt as though my fellow churchwarden and I were propping up the Titanic.
if I was given a choice, I would worship in someone's living room, or a room above the pub.
Thanks to you all for responding.

BackOnlyBriefly bit of a stereotype!

Personally, I don't think for one minute the C of E is doomed to sink!

But BackOnlyBriefly I do agree that C of E is hanging on to a few things it could do well to shed!

carlajean being part of a church doesn't stop you from worshipping in someone's living room. [wikn] So sorry you feel like you're on the titanic. I do know how you feel, at times being part of a small church can be hard but it's not just the building. We don't even have our own building. I hope your church will think things through for the future, maybe they will be willing to change but slowly.

The church of England has to rethink how best to use its time and assets. We need to serve the community rather than being just a middle class social club. In centuries gone by the church was the equivalent of the childrens' centres.

I think that the church has to think how to use its buildings to better affect.

Some people worship the buildings rather than God. Certainly many people are against re ordering of a church, even when the pews limit what you can do with a building.

I feel that the church needs to relax its rules on who can marry in a particular church. Our local parish church (which is very happy clappy) looks as about as beautiful as a nuclear reactor. If someone wants a wedding in a better looking church then they have to attend church for 6 months. Many people opt for a secular cermony in a hotel. I would like the church to allow couples out of area/ non attenders to marry at whatever church they like. People on the electoral roll/ in the parish could be given preferential rates.

Or shock horror, maybe be prepared to hire out their building to someone who wants an non christian wedding.

Our church is 13th century, but makes money from hiring out its church hall. They also hire out the church for concerts.

I guess it also depends what 'the church' sees as it's function in a society. Part of having a building is the concern and costs needed for it. But I do understand that some churches don't want to hire out their building for use... maybe it really does depend what it would be used for.

You're grand

Joking aside, here's an academic study about re-use of church buildings.

I'm always baffled why the CofE doesn't exploit the lucrative potential of the wedding market though. Obviously, it would be bad form to fleece the parishioners, but why should random secular people pay thousands to have rushed Friday weddings in dodgy hotel venues, while beautiful churches sit unused on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

I'd love to have our church (large 15th century) used more for weddings as we have a beautiful tudor church hall next door which we could use for receptions. Weddings are down this year which may be due to the economic downturn or maybe people like to have the wedding in one place rather than go to church and then on to the reception.

To get married in church you need to show a qualifying connection to the parish and it can be that you lived there 10 years ago www.yourchurchwedding.org/youre-welcome/more-churches-to-choose-from.aspx

The fees for weddings are fixed so pretty popular churches can't up the fee!

The rules have become more relaxed. I feel that people with a qualifying connection under the rules could have their wedding at far lower cost than someone who just wants a pretty venue.

Prehaps quaint churches could work with the humanist society to provide a nice venue for those who want a naming cermony, humanist funeral or humanist wedding.

Or prehaps other christian sects could share the building and facilites. There is a church near me that is shared by catholics, church of england and baptists. They have their services at different times on Sunday.

The church is made up of its members. It is not a building as such. Many parishioners would rather that their money goes to help people rather than maintain old buildings.

Being overly attached to pretty buildings is a form of idolatory and gets in the way of a relationship with Christ.

Coming to this rather late, but just to say that I don't think that the Church is doomed at all.

The discussion about the wedding market is interesting. We were told at our APCM last week that the phenomenon of people joining the electoral roll in order to get married in the church and then never being seen again is pretty common. (Over 100 names were removed from the electoral roll this year since the last time it was re-done in full - can't remember how often it is that that has to be done - although over 50 new names were added in the last year so it's not all doom and gloom).

Greenheart: how do you feel about marrying people who have no intention of becoming regular (or even irregular) members of the congregation? I tend to think that it's impossible to know whether people will come (back) to faith at some point in the future, and therefore giving them a good 'church experience' at a key moment in their lives is a positive thing even if they are not able to make a commitment to the church there and then. But that's just from a lay perspective, obviously...

I'm also interested in the discussion about use of church buildings. Our own church has been undergoing a period of restoration, and some things have been very contentious, such as the ripping out of the Victorian pews, in particular. But with the pews gone the space can be used so much more flexibly, to suit large and more intimate gatherings. And stackable chairs can also be cleared away to create a space that can be used also for other things. Aesthetically, I liked the pews. But in terms of modelling a church that can reach out to its community, their removal was the best thing that could have been done. It took a bold vision to see how this could happen, and then to make it happen, but I do think that it is a step in the right direction.

The majority of weddings are for people who have no intention of coming to church afterwards. I have absolutely no problem with that. It would be great if they did come back but if I can make their day special and help them make a connection with the transcendent during their service then that works for me. One of the reasons I came back to church when my youngest was born was that we had really good and kind marriage preparation at our local church.

The vast majority of funerals I do are for people with no church connection and it is only in baptisms that I know about 50% of the families as we have a very good Messy Church style service that people come along to.

I would love to be able to reorder the chuch and get rid of the pews. It would be very expensive as we would need to do the floor and heating as well as buy new chairs or stackable pews but it would make the building much more flexible. Oddly enough it tends to be non churchgoers who get most upset about reordering. There is a sense of ownership without participation (or paying for the upkeep) that can be a real issue for churches who do want to use the building in a more community focused way.

The bureaucracy involved with re ordering is unbelievable.

Our church took out two of the pews so that wheel chair users could have easier access. It took months to get permission.

Ah yes... that sounds familiar (re. the pews).

Once the pews are gone, how can the space best be used? What is the right balance between allowing the use of the space by non-Christian groups/using the space for non-Christian activities from within church or rather 'not-specifically-Christian-activities'/using the space for more alternative worship/outreach and traditional stuff.

Curious to hear what people have found that works. We do not have our own building so don't have this 'problem' but also have the problem of having to pay every time we want to use a space like a hall or local Christian cafe.

We reordered our church about 15 years ago.

It was a painful process as so many people were attached to the pews and other fixtures that perhaps their ancestors had contributed.

We have almost doubled our congregations since the reordering. We had to split our main congregation into two during the reordering in order to fit everyone in the church centre. One of the services became more traditional, and the other more modern, compared to the hybrid we had before. On moving back into church, both congregations had room to grow.

We both restored our church to its original Georgian architecture (bright and airy compared to gloomy Victorian), and totally modernised it too - carpets, underfloor heating, state of the art audio-visuals, and basics like disabled access and toilets.

Because we have chairs instead of pews, we can use the building far more - and do. We are happy to let the building out for concerts and we are not precious about any stuff (except the tech desk). We are happy have them move the communion table, for example.

We firmly believe that the church is the heart of the community and we have lots of mission projects that anyone can benefit from - free cafe, food bank, debt counselling, help accessing benefits, parenting courses, toddler group, holiday club, and more.

I don't think the CofE is dying. Far from it. The harvest is more plentiful today than ever. The Victorians did us a big miservice by building massive churches (bigger than their needs) in inappropriate places. Town centre churches are not that useful when most people live in suburbs. There are lots of vibrant CofE churches making church plants in the heart of modern communities.

The CofE has big problems because they're just too wishy washy for many but not liberal enough for others so they're stranded between the Catholics and the evangelicals.

I'm still pissed off with them over women bishops. I'm getting DD baptised in the summer and I'm really really conflicted over it. If she was my first child I don't think I'd bother. I can only justify it by saying it's about my relationship with God, and just leave the church out of it - hey, on that basis, maybe I should convert to Islam.

again, thank you for responding, I've enjoyed reading all you responses. at the moment we're on holiday in the States,and aim to go to a different church every Sunday. Yesterday we started the ball rolling by going to Holy Trinity , Boston (next to where the recent bombings occurred). it's a beautiful, enormous, church, with about 300 communicants and a service almost identical to our one at home. it also has a deep commitment to social outreach. (however, it's also like home, in that nobody spoke to us at the post-service coffee!).
So it is possibly to have a strong, traditional, church.
But I am being unfair, comparing a small rural church to a large urban one, I suppose.
I'm really interested in other people's experiences of the CofE but, unfortunately, feel that my church has reached the point of no return, and that many other rural churches are in that position.