PARISH CHURCHES? how do we keep our - Ecclesiological Society

HOW DO WE KEEP OUR PARISH CHURCHES? • KEEPING CHURCH BUILDINGS IN GOOD REPAIR 35
AN IMPORTANT VICTORIAN CHURCH
Recently I paid my #rst visit to a well-known
nineteenth-century church, built by a famous architect.
It is a stunning building.
It is also large. Far, far larger than the typical Sunday
congregation of about 25 actually needs. In fact, the
building has not been anything like full on Sundays for
at least #fty years. It may never have been.
Over the last decade or so, large sums of money have
been spent on it, totalling somewhere in the very high
six #gures. Another six #gure sum is now required.
What should we do with the building? It has
wonderful acoustics: but concerts do not draw
suf#ciently large attendances to make them worthwhile.
Thought is being given to creating a meeting room by
enclosing a space at the west end. Will this spoil the
interior?–Iamnotquali#ed to say. It may indeed be
the best solution, providing a useful space for local folk
whilst helping keep the building alive.
But I am left with the feeling that for buildings of this
importance we need different mechanisms, which will
allow the congregation to continue worshipping there
without pretending that they are going to be able to
maintain the building themselves; and will, perhaps,
make more of the potential to attract visitors.
Trevor Cooper
It seems likely that, on average, small congregations will
be the ones which are least able to raise funds for large
repairs, or to carry out routine maintenance.
In addition, the smaller the congregation, the more
likely they are to have to share clergy with other
congregations, diluting an important source of leadership.
Looking at the rural situation, in 1994 more than one
third (36%) of very small rural communities – those with
fewer than 200 inhabitants – had a vicar who looked after
#ve or more churches (Table 3.7). Overall, I estimate that
there were approximately 1,700 rural communities in
England sharing their vicar with at least four other
churches. Since then the number of clergy has dropped
faster than the number of church buildings, so there are
presumably even more clergy and churches in this
situation today.
The clergy in this position will have less time to devote
to each of their church buildings. In one study, done in
Table 3.7
Number of rural churches with vicar who has care of five or
more churches, by population of community (1994)
Churches with vicar caring
Population of community for five or more churches
% Number
Up to 200 36 590
200–399 27 550
400–899 17 390
900–3000 8 180
Overall 21 Total =
1700
Source: Francis and Martineau, Rural Mission, Table 3. For number of
churches, see Appendix E.
FINANCIAL PRESSURES ON PARISHES
These are quotes from churches responding to Jeremy Eckstein’s
questionnaire, undertaken as research for his 2001 report. These
have been selected as representative of those churches #nding it
dif#cult to fund all recommended repairs. Each of these cases
represents a set of worries for real people looking after a historic
building with inadequate funds. We do not know what
proportion of churches found themselves in this position.
• Work on guttering and downpipes was not attended
to, mainly because of unanticipated need for
re-wiring, heating and lighting (£10,000) and
redecorating (£8,000).
• No major work was identi#ed as being required.
However there is currently a requirement for £15,000
for organ repairs, £11,000 for re-wiring and £6,000
for stonework on gables – £32,000 in all, for which
we have available funds amounting to £12,000.
• Following massive water penetration, work was
carried out to repair/replace sections of roof, at a total
cost of £12,000 – of which £8,500 was raised locally.
Medium plan is now to carry on improving water
run-off/roof. Funding is now a problem, as total cost
was estimated at £50,000 and grant-aid is no longer
available. We are trying to complete fund-raising for a
new hall, so efforts to continue with repairs will have
to cease until that is done.
• [After a major fund-raising initiative for urgent
repairs.] The fund-raising team was exhausted by the
end of Phase II, and were given #ve years to
recuperate and enjoy what they had achieved.
Source: Eckstein (2001)
1989, about 150 multi-church clergy were asked to list up
to #ve disadvantages of having multiple church buildings.
Unprompted, more than half mentioned the pressures of
looking after several buildings, often Grade I, and the
associated #nancial strains. “Fabric takes a
disproportionate time,” complained one minister. Another
said that one result of having many church building was
that it meant “getting to know a lot of architects” ! 8
Furthermore, one third of rural vicars (32%) are aged
over sixty (1994 study), and this may also have an impact
on the energy they are able to devote to organising
large-scale, long-term fund-raising and church repairs
(though the opposite might also be true: their experience
may mean they #nd the process less of a struggle). 9
In the light of these considerations, I was somewhat
surprised by my analysis of last year’s grants by EH/HLF to
small rural congregations. I found that grants were awarded
to smaller rural communities in more or less the same
proportion as those communities occur. That is, small
communities were not under-represented. I have not had
the opportunity to analyse grant requests, to see if they
show the same pattern. It is possible that they are
under-represented in applications, but that they are more
likely to make it through the selection process, which
allows for urgency and #nancial need.
These problems are not limited to rural churches, but
similar data for urban churches is less easily available. We
badly need a review of the dif#culties which parishes of all