Calling Time: Notes on closing a church

4 It's not over until...

If I thought that the PCC decision was the end of the matter and that everything that followed was just a formality I was in for a big surprise. From this point it took just over two years for the formal redundancy to be confirmed by Her Majesty in Council and there were many more sleepless nights ahead. This chapter picks up the story from the second public meeting to the church finally being closed two years later. Holding the frustration and impatience, together with the unresolved pain of those campaigning to save ‘their church’ during this time took far more out of me than I imagined and it was not very pleasant. It was like having a cloud over parish life which had the potential to bring everything crashing down at any moment. Some of those campaigning to save their church acted in ways that felt more aggressive as it dawned on them that with each stage they were not succeeding in their aims.

From this point the focus of attention moves from the parish to the Diocesan Pastoral Committee, the Diocesan Redundant Churches Uses Committee, The Council for the Care of Churches, and ultimately The Church Commissioners. All of these bodies make their own enquiries, take seriously representations made to them and examine these independently for themselves. This means that if anyone knows how to play the system they can delay things for some time by raising the same objections time and again because at each stage they will be treated as though they are being made for the first time. Of course a cumulative wisdom does build up, but each group involved has to be able to satisfy itself (and potentially a judge if it ever came to it) that they have looked at the matter fully and impartially. For the poor parish who have spent months if not years on this matter, and have gone over everything in great detail to the nth degree, this is very frustrating. However in the long run it does mean that if the decision is backed at each stage then that backing means so much more than if it was just a rubber stamp. Scrutiny has its advantages, even if it doesn’t quite feel like it at the time!

It was clear from the public meeting that the determined campaigner was not going to go away, but rather go into overdrive. He had been surprised by the size of the PCC report, but clearly sat down to look for holes in it which could be exploited to get the decision thrown out by the Diocesan Pastoral Committee.

This involved commissioning reports on some of the aspects of the buildings in order to provide what would give the semblance of ‘authoritative’ challenges, formally raising long standing irregularities in the parish’s faculty permissions with the archdeacon and then with the Diocesan Registrar, and also with raising technical objections over various aspects of the parish’s buildings. This latter involved claiming drug abuse behind a property used by the Sunday School, which the police could not substantiate. Whether or not the intention was to grind everyone down, is not known, but this was certainly how it felt. The best response came to be to calmly investigate the accusation and correct it with solid evidence or professional advice.

Slowly, but surely the determined efforts became counter productive because they failed to engage the fundamental drive behind the church closure which was the lack of a sustainable community to support the church and the claim that it was not needed pastorally.

An architect from the Council for the Care of Churches visited the churches and made a report on their conservation value and the treasures and artefacts they contained. This was required by the Diocesan Pastoral Committee before they would pursue the matter. The Diocesan Pastoral Committee actually decided a year later that the closure should be referred to the Bishop with the recommendation that he seek its formal redundancy from the Church Commissioners.

Once the parish had made their decision it seemed important to act on it and focus the church’s ministry fully through the church being retained. And so that was implemented that autumn. In order to do this, the final Parish Communion in the church to be closed was given a flavour of thanksgiving for all the church had been for the community over the years. This took the form of a Communion for All Saints giving thanks for the saints who had served in and through the church. The service ended with everyone being given lighted candles to hold. A prayer was used acknowledging the grief that was present in the service but also inviting the congregation to ‘step out in hope and trust and dedicate [themselves] to shine as lights to the glory of God in [their] own generation.’

After the dismissal the congregation were invited to place their lighted candles in sand trays in the side chapel as a sign of their ‘prayers and commitment to shine in fellowship with all the saints as lights in the world’. This proved to be very effective and the whole congregation queued quietly to place their candles in the sand trays. It seemed to provide a physical expression of so much that could not be put into words.

Services continued in the church, but not the main Sunday service or services which were organised by the parish to further its mission, for instance at key Christian festivals. The services that continued were a weekly said Communion, which became the focal point for a small band of faithful people who I suspect came to regard this as the ‘real’ main service for the week, and also a monthly 8.00am Communion on Sunday. There were times when these services felt very uncomfortable and others when they had a presence to them which was a privilege to have been part of. Apart from holidays etc. I made a deliberate decision to preside at these services myself and maintain that contact with the congregations concerned, to be along side them and hold them pastorally through what proved to be a much longer period than I originally expected.

Pastoral offices also continued in the church recommended for closure. In advance of the formal redundancy having actually been completed, we had no authority to deny this choice. The reality was that, apart form an initial small flourish of baptisms, implying a few people were ‘getting in’ while they still could, the majority of people continued to ignore the building.

A decision was also made by the PCC to only carry out essential maintenance work to keep the building water tight. All other expenditure was frozen, the PCC not having spare funds to commit to what it had decided was a superfluous building. The building still had to be insured though, but this had long been on a first loss basis and that was continued. While this saved a proportion of the premium, it still represented a large charge on the PCC.

Slowly the grounds deteriorated as the congregation took less interest in it having ceased to hold their main services in it. A small band though continued to clean the church - it sparkled - and there were always fresh flowers in it during the times when that was appropriate. At times this seemed to be an expression of denial of the real situation they faced. At other times it seemed to be like caring for a dying friend, ensuring that they maintained their dignity to the end. It may be that both elements were present to some extent in all concerned.

The first major step in this part of the process came with the Diocesan Pastoral Committee consulting with ‘interested parties’ about the proposed closure. This means the incumbent, PCC (including any other PCCs if it is a multiple parish benefice - which this was), the rural/area dean and lay chair, the local planning authority, the patron(s), the archdeacon. All of these backed the proposal.

Some were concerned locally that a new use should be found for the church - either as part of the redundancy process or just that a new use needed to be found. A number of enquiries were made and these were all noted and passed to the Secretary of the Redundant Churches Uses Committee for future reference. The reality was, though, that no use could really be explored until the redundancy was finalised, because if it involved funds, then without that formal approval it was not actually certain that it would be able to proceed!

It was during this time that the failure of another parish to close one of their church’s appeared in the church press¹. The importance of following correct procedures and all the work put into ensuring the argument was based on solid foundations seemed very important indeed. But this was still an unnerving report to read and just increased the stress and tension. It was a reminder that the Church of England is for all the people of a parish and not just those who regularly attend and ensure its continuity. There are tensions in this which every parish feels from time to time.

The referral of the matter to the Church Commissioners made the determined campaigner switch from overdrive to turbo. I discovered that as soon as he had learned that the proposal had been referred to them he had been on the phone alluding to failures in the process, which the Commissioners duly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. In due course they instigated their own consultation process seeking views from anyone who wished to comment and notices were served on the interested parties mentioned above and placed on the church noticeboards of the benefice.

A campaign was raised to try to mobilise support in opposing the proposed redundancy and proforma letters were liberally distributed around the community. A number of people completed these stating they supported the determined campaigner in his opposition of the scheme, which in reality required no more effort than lifting a pen from an armchair. Behind this was a document of 30 pages. It was well presented. Fortunately a copy was leaked to me the Sunday afternoon before the closing date for representations. This contained a large number of errors and distortions (through omission of balancing facts or through just misleading impressions being created in the way it was written) so I spent 10 hours responding to it and e-mailed detailed corrections to the Church Commissioners that night so that they received it within the time limit, the following morning!

All of the representations made to the Commissioners were sent to the Bishop for his comment. The determined campaigner had asked to be shown a copy of the bishop’s reply and in accordance with their policy to try to find agreement the Commissioners had agreed to this. Because the bishop referred to my e-mail a copy of that was also passed to him. The importance of regarding all correspondence as being potentially in the public domain was very apparent.

The whole matter was considered by the Church Commissioners, but their decision was not released for three more weeks. It was accompanied by a five page letter giving their main reasons and this had been checked for factually accuracy by the bishop, who naturally consulted the Secretary of the Diocesan Pastoral Committee. By and large the Church Commissioners agreed with the criteria which had been used to reach the PCC’s decision. A form sent to the incumbent by the Church Commissioners indicated some of the other criteria which would be considered. This asked for details of bus routes and therefore the impact of a closure on the ability of people to access church services. (This was one of the reasons the redundancy in Whitby, mentioned above, was reported to have failed.) The Church Commissioners’ form also asked about ecclesiastical traditions and styles of worship, the implication being that they wanted to check no particular church tradition would be disenfranchised by the decision.

Objectors had a month to seek leave of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to Appeal against the Church Commissioners’ decision. This is rarely granted, because it is usually only given on points of law, and there can be substantial legal costs involved for those who seek leave. The matter was submitted by the Commissioners to the Queen in Council at that point for confirmation. Once signed the declaration of redundancy came into effect on the first day of the following month - 2 years 3 months after the second public meeting!

Rather than just shut the door, especially since the church was still being used for services, it seemed particularly important to make the final service appropriate for the occasion. Some of those who had continue to care for the church and worship in it said firmly that they would not be able to attend the final service - which in effect meant that their final service was the penultimate one which needed careful handling itself. The mood was very flat at this point, so while thanksgiving was important, there were other emotions to handle in prayer too: grief, anger, deep sadness, memories of so much.

It was decided to hold a special service on the Sunday evening before the redundancy came into effect. This would carry elements of thanksgiving.

Summary of observations:

The focus shifts after local decisions have been made and it needs to be remembered that those who make decisions from now on, while wishing to support parishes in furthering their ministry, will nonetheless make their own minds up!
At every stage that follows the matter will be investigated fully. It will therefore take years not weeks to reach completion. It should be recognised that holding the tension and frustration of this will be difficult.
Vigilance is needed and the process will require periodic touches to the tiller to keep it on course, queries will need to be answered and misunderstandings/distortions corrected.
This is where attention to detail previously will pay dividends, but it’s not over until the monarch signs the Order in Council.
As always a church needs to care for those who are hurting.
Vigilance means that when comments or representations are requested it is important to give them! So when the Diocesan Pastoral Committee or the Church Commissioners request representations, it cannot be assumed that they will necessary notice everything that has been sent before. A concise letter drawing their attention to the salient points can be helpful in ensuring these points are not overlooked.
Diocesan and Church Commissioner officials are doing their jobs and will do this with professionalism. It is important to treat them with courtesy and worth phoning them occasionally to ask how the matter is progressing and if there is anything they need clarifying - if they do they’ll let you know - and warmth, while it won’t change the substance of arguments, doesn’t do any harm.
Be prepared for the campaigners to get mobilised big time when the Commissioners are involved. They will realise this is serious, if they haven’t already, and if they are going to, this is when they will go for it. They have a democratic right to do this, but it may be wise to ensure that the Commissioners receive representations putting the other side. Mobilise your own supporters to write as well. The Commissioners don’t know the place as well as those on the spot do, nor do they know that half of the signatures on the petition/duplicated letters have come from people who never darken the doors.
Keep a cool head. Some of the things objectors get up to may well make the blood of those with responsibility on the spot boil. Find a way to cool it down and respond with magnanimity and proportion, always leaving the door to reconciliation open. They have a right to object and pain comes out in different ways. Find wise counsellors who can help you keep things in balance.
The death of a church needs its own funeral. Give it one - close it with prayer and thanksgiving. It has been a focus for much over the years and that needs acknowledging, even if sadly it doesn’t have a future place in pastoral ministry.

Footnotes:

¹‘Church stays; rector goes’ Church Times 1st October 1999; letters 8th October and 15th October 1999. The case concerned St John’s, Whitby.

18th May 2002

Last updated February 2008