Rector’s Daily Reflections
Friday 23rd February 2024
The Future of our Church Buildings
Today is the final instalment in the current series of reflections, in which we have been considering how our churches can repair and conserve their buildings for the benefit of church goers and non-goers alike. There are currently One Billion Pounds worth of outstanding repairs, and every year the churches in the UK have to find £150 million simply to undertake routine repair and maintenance.
The tendency is to ignore the seriousness of the issue, and consider that a “business as normal” approach will be sufficient to look after our church buildings in the years ahead. The National Churches Trust would disagree, and they explain why in their recent report, Every Church Counts, The report itself comes up with six fairly non-controversial proposals.
But has the time come for a much more radical approach? Some would say so. Yesterday I referred to the idea that the time has come to be serious about closing those churches which are unviable and investing time and money on repairing and improving the churches which seem to have a future. Why spend £100,000 on repairing the roof of church for the benefit of a congregation of 10?
I’m going to finish this series of reflections with another radical suggestion. Has the time come to lobby hard for the nationalisation of our historic church buildings? Should we accept that church congregations will never have the people or the money to look after the historic buildings in their care, and that only the State has the resources to do so? Or should we agree to pass our buildings over to the care of an organisation like English Heritage or the National Trust, who will care for them on behalf of future generations? Individual congregations could be free to enter into a letting agreement with the Heritage body, to allow them to use the building for worship or other purposes; the terms of such an agreement would be negotiated on a case by case basis. The amount paid by a congregation to use a church building might well include a significant element towards the costs of maintenance. Furthermore, casual visitors could be charged an entrance fee, in much the same way that someone visiting a heritage asset such as a stately home will expect to pay for the privilege.
Or is this much too radical a suggestion? What do you think?