It does also have a church.
A recent village survey showed 95% of the high proportion who responded thought it was important to keep a functioning church and while over 100 attended the carol service last year; regular attendees have dwindled and income has dropped so that the available funds for maintenance and repair are very thin. It is a challenge for the PCC to know whether it is better to spend their limited funds on the roof and the walls or loos and heating. Added comfort would undoubtedly make it easier to widen the use for the building and bring in more people. A listed building has to have a viable use if it is to survive.
Different tastes and styles over the last 800 years have left their mark on the church. A 12th century font; a 13th century tower; a 15th century stained glass window; a 16th century north aisle and porch and lots of 19th century restoration and addition including by the gothic revival architect William White. In 1842 George Wightwick designed a reredos to which marble work was added in 1890 by R.M.Fulford.
The reredos was funded by one of my ancestors. The work added to it in 1890 was funded by another of my ancestors. The trouble is that the reredos blocks out the east window behind the altar and it has always looked awkward.
It has now started to deteriorate. The ironwork holding the stone together has started to fail probably due to damp.Segments of stone are starting to come loose.
We now have a health and safety problem. Another of my ancestors- in this case my uncle who died last year-left a little money (£50!) in his will towards the removal of the reredos. Would removal and the consequent saving of money on repairs not be a sensible course of action? Would it not leave money for other investments to help the future of the church?It is after all a lack of heat and ventilation that has caused its deterioration. Could the reredos be useful somewhere else where there is the money to restore it properly and a better location for it?
These are typical of the sort of dilemmas faced by those responsible for looking after historic buildings.The question will be- how will the faculty procedure of the Church of England deal with this one?
Although it must seem as if you are the only church to be facing this kind of issue and the Diocese will leave you and your PCC to wrestle with problem my experience is that you are far from unique. In our Parish we face similar issues;-
ReplyDeleteAfter three lead thefts we face approaching £80k of repairs. We already struggle to meet out Parish Share with 35 regular worshipers each week. Should we pay our Share or repair the Church?
We are part of a modern Benefice with five churches who between them would struggle to fill one on a Sunday. Sure, the Remembrance Service and Carols are packed out but week in week out we struggle. The Diocese answer is that we must increase revenue and dispatched a well-meaning and clever chap to tell us about 'stewardship'. I'm sure we could raise more but the point that is being missed by the Bishops busy arguing about women's role in the CofE & whether to allow Gay marriage is that all the while the backbone of the Church is crumbling - physically and spiritually.
Today whilst water trickles into my Church and the Cadbury PCC tries to square a circle the Archbishops announce that they will be Tweeting their Christmas sermons. This may help get the message out to those who aren't interested in coming to hear it but it sends a poor message to the thousands of ordinary folk responsible for the nations Churches who rely on a Christmas Day collection to keep the buildings from falling in.
Good luck, you are far from alone!
Henry
DeleteThanks for this. I realise that many other churches face this same type of dilemma but it is always reassuring to remember that we are not alone.
In my view it requires some radical thinking and the readiness to shake up some of the existing governance structures designed for a world that no longer exists.Leadership from the top is needed and that leadership needs to be pragmatic, realistic, questioning and original.
We need to start from the premise that maintaining these buildings will happen only if sufficient people care.
You need to fix the roof otherwise the building will deteriorate. But to get more people to use the church toilets etc are also importaht. Please contact the National Churches Trust for more info. 0207 776 1048.
ReplyDeleteLuckily our roof is OK but I agree that getting more people in is important. Will keep in touch with NCT. Thanks
DeleteDavid its a good blog - as others have commented it is not an uncommon scenario. www.facebook.com/harrismcmillan
ReplyDeleteOur understanding of Faculty procedure when considering the future use of listed buildings is that the first and foremost consideration is mission (i.e. the PCC's view of the purpose of the Church in relation to it's community), and this overrides conservation; ultimately, the listed status of the building is not allowed to restrict the ability of the church community to worship God, and it is for the church to define 'worship'.
That is our understanding, however In our experience, the process becomes unduly protracted or onerous for three main reasons:
• the PCC has failed to clearly identify, or adhere to in unity, a clear missional strategy that necessitates any alterations to the building.
• the Church has failed or been unable to demonstrate a strong relationship between what it wants to implement, and the PCC's missional strategy
• because of a lack of clarity Conservation is allowed to take precedence over all else, subduing on all other considerations.
Which suggests that the best chance of a successful Faculty process is for the Church to first have an established strategy for what it is trying to achieve, and second that the majority of the Church (and wider) community will endorse proposals which pass the test of contributing to the misson.
Thanks for this. It is a really helpful suggestion. Time to tackle the rest of the PCC!
DeleteDavid