Calling Time: Notes on closing a church

2 Preparing the ground

The decision to close a church is never an easy one for a community to make. It is difficult for the reasons mentioned in the previous chapter and it is therefore not made lightly, or even without struggle. These notes are rooted in a real place and in a real decision painfully reached to close a church. Some aspects of this story may well resonate with the reader, others may be very different, but it is important to tell the story so that the comments are grounded and also so that it can be seen where the conclusions and tips come from.

The story is set out in a number of digestible portions. In this chapter I will first of all describe the context, the parish and its environs. Then I will give the background to the decision, why it was felt to be necessary. Thirdly, I will outline the process that was followed and what happened during it as far as the first public meeting. The story will continue in subsequent chapters. Names of individuals involved are not given, because they are not necessary to telling the story. Clearly though, this is a true story and real people were involved displaying themselves at their best and worst! This is my account of the events and others will undoubtedly have seen things differently.

The Context

The parish covered roughly a third of a small market town in South East England. Its population, totalling around 6,000 people, was socially diverse. The area included Housing Association properties, houses tenanted from private landlords and former council houses which became owner occupied through the ‘right to buy’ policy of the 1980s and 1990s. There were also owner occupied properties covering the age spectrum from first-time buyers/starter homes to retirement bungalows and flats. The socio-economic profile ranged from those struggling to make ends meet on benefits or low wages to the more prosperous. This diversity was spread in pockets around the whole area.

Geographically the housing areas were dissected by a hill. Anyone travelling between them had to negotiate this hill and visually it separated the areas. Two thirds of the properties lay one side of the hill and the remainder the other. There were a number on the hill itself.

The parish had its origins in two parishes which were first held in plurality for 30 years and then formally united in 1964. One of the churches was a former priory church, dating from the mid twelfth century. For most of its existence it sat in a rural setting, the population totalling a few hundred at most. Since the 1960s this area had experienced a large amount of housing development with the subsequent rise in population. This church found itself strategically placed on the hill, across the road from a local shop and next to a popular primary school. Links had been strengthened with that school and another school in the larger housing area used it at key Christian festivals and paid visits as part of the curriculum.

The other church was built in the 1880s to serve the then slums of the town. At the time it was centrally placed within its community and played a key role in the life of that community. It had been served by faithful clergy who represented some of the best traditions of Church of England clergy in their social involvement in the community. The back-to-back housing was largely demolished in the 1950s and a council estate built on former brick fields placing the church in a more isolated position in relation to the community. The seeds of its decline were sown at that point, together with the decline which the Church of England experienced over that period generally. Many of these houses now looked as much, if not more, to the other church on the hill than to this one.

While a number of people clearly held deep attachments to one or other of the churches, the congregation was to the larger extent shared and services were not held concurrently. It was one congregation which used two buildings. With declining attendance this became unsustainable and the issue of closure was first raise twenty years before it finally happened.

Why close a church

One of the driving forces behind the decision to close a church concerned a financial crisis: the parish just could not afford to sustain two churches. A series of financial deficits continued through two decades. But this was neither the sole nor primary drive. The financial situation was itself symptomatic of a greater issue. There was not a community to support two churches and the financial state reflected that reality. Central to the decision was the realisation that the parish did not have a pastoral need for two church buildings.

There were a number of false starts to the process. At least three previous incumbents had realised that something needed to be done and my immediate predecessor made a start. The parish began to grapple with the matter and got as far as deciding that a church should close. But this was side-tracked by the parish’s involvement with the debates in the wider church surrounding the ordination of women to priesthood. After the decision by the Church of England’s General Synod in 1992, the matter lay in abeyance. The incumbent at the time and around thirty members of the congregation left to become Roman Catholics and the parish effectively crashed at that point.

The new incumbent inherited a situation where the central question was not so much to do with getting rid of a church as seeing if there was anything to salvage. It was clear to me from the first time I saw the place that one of the churches had to go so that one of them would stand a chance of recovering. The place could barely sustain one church and two just placed a crippling division which would impede mission and ministry. There was no way I could see that the church community would get off the ground again carrying both buildings. This view was confirmed by the parish representatives when I met them to discuss the possibility of becoming the incumbent and they knew that the matter would have to be faced in the relatively short term.

My first impression was confirmed during the first year. It became clear that the situation was long term and that the departure of a large proportion of the congregation had only really exacerbated the problem. This was not a situation where a little, or even substantial effort, would remove the need for a redundancy. Neither church had been deliberately run down, there was just not the resources to sustain two and the pattern of ministry reflected either the choice of the community or a genuine desire to engage with the community as best could be.

After a year, getting to know the parish and its wider setting, it was decided to hold a PCC vision day to begin setting the agenda for the future. This took place at a nearby priory. In preparation for this I circulated a paper with some thoughts on the purpose of the Church and some questions to begin focusing reflections towards creating a vision for the parish. The discussions on the day were facilitated by using a SWOT analysis: looking at the church’s strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats. Almost immediately we began discussing the weaknesses someone raised the problem of the two churches and there was unanimous agreement (at least no one raised a dissenting view) to the suggestion that one of them had to be closed. This was recorded and a suitable note made when the day was written up for future reference.

The vision day was discussed with the PCC Standing Committee and we decided to raise the issue of closure with the full PCC when reviewing the vision day at the next meeting. The PCC unanimously passed a resolution instituting a process to achieve the closure of one of the churches. It was decided

that the resolution would be made public at the Annual Parochial Church Meeting (i.e. 4 weeks later);
that an open meeting would be held to obtain the views of the community;
the PCC Standing Committee would liase with the bishop and archdeacon, and consider the factors and submissions received to produce a recommendation to the PCC as to which church should close;
the PCC would discuss the recommendation in the Autumn (i.e. 5 months later) and formally decide which building it would seek to be closed. The matter would then be formally referred to the relevant authorities for that church to be made redundant;
an open meeting would be held to present the decision and the reasons for it;
the bishop would be asked for permission to stop using the relevant church building at that stage.

The final point could not be implemented because no decision can be made to cease using a church completely in advance of formal redundancy¹. This was particularly important in order to prevent a charge that there had been a deliberate running down of church life². The process had therefore begun and had been initiated by the PCC. The bishop, archdeacon, rural dean and secretary of the Diocesan Pastoral Committee were informed of the resolution.

Process and story up to first public meeting

Before we got to the parish vision day, I had read through everything I could lay my hands on about what had gone on before. This involved PCC minutes, an earlier report, the correspondence which was available from the previous attempt. The earlier report really said no more than one of the churches needed to close and the process lay in abeyance without going on to set down which one it was felt at that time it should be.

Some of the correspondence was vitriolic and involved a petition calling into question the integrity of the then incumbent. This led to a statement being read out at the APCM with threats of legal action against the perpetrators. There were also calls for detailed analysis of various aspects of parish life, the relative merits of the churches and the parochial finances. The original PCC resolution that a church needed to close had never been removed. There had been an attempt to over turn this at an APCM during the subsequent interregnum, but this had failed. Clearly there were some experienced campaigners around. Interestingly there seemed to be an assumption that one of the churches was more vulnerable at that time than the other.

After the PCC resolution it was important to begin preparing for the coming months. I analysed the baptism and wedding registers to see where the people came from and which churches they chose. I walked the parish taking slide photographs of its areas and the visibility of the various church buildings from the various areas. I also took similar photographs from other parts of the town where relevant. The electoral roll was analysed to see where the congregations were drawn from and the location of other churches in the vicinity were noted. The accounts were studies over a decade to check the trend was indeed one of continuous deficit. With a change in diocesan policy for every parish being expected to move to a position where it could pay its own way, it was also important to ascertain the relationship between the amount of quota paid to the diocese and the true cost of paying for the clergy. I also looked back through service registers to analyse the different attendance when services were held at the respective churches. This data and material all provided important background information.

It was also important to commission up-to-date quinquennial inspection reports on the state of the church buildings and the architect was informed from the outset what was happening so that he knew what he was walking into. Reports were also commissioned on the ancillary buildings and all of these were costed. This work while commissioned early on was not completed until the end of the summer of that year.

It became clear early on that this task was going to require a major investment of time from me and that it would equate to a major project if it was going to be prevented from being derailed or hijacked. I had discussed the prospect of closing one of the churches with the bishop at an early date and also made contact with key diocesan officers. The PCC resolution was discussed with the Chairman of the Redundant Churches Uses Committee, who had experience of such matters, and the archdeacon was also involved from an early date. This was not only going to take a great deal of my time, but was going to require me to draw on experience and advice from a wide variety of people.

The annual meeting passed without major incident. The announcement seemed to surprise only one person present. Clearly word had leaked out before hand. The PCC had not held the decision confidential until the annual meeting, as had been agreed, though those who knew made no reference to it until I had announced it at the annual meeting! There was a request for PCC minutes to be publicised and it was subsequently agreed by the PCC that approved minutes would be displayed on church noticeboards.

A press release had been prepared and was sent to the local papers. This was sensitively written up by them and appeared the following week. I was careful not to give the impression that a decision had already been made and reference was made to the public meeting which would begin a consultation process to assist with the decision making process. A letter was also issued to the congregation on the Sunday following the annual meeting informing them of the announcement and the reasons behind it. The sequence of events were timed so that the congregations were informed before the local papers and publication dates assisted this. The public meeting was to be held in a school hall, being neutral ground, and its purpose was given as being to explain the reasons in more detail and also give people an opportunity to state their opinions publicly.

Just over a week after the annual meeting, I was visited by a member of the 8 o’clock congregation. He clearly had his check list of things he wished to discuss and began his campaigning at first with subtlety. I made file notes of this and all subsequent meetings and other conversations with this man so that I could check facts at a later date if I needed to. He wanted copies of quinquennial reports and also any information available on ancillary buildings. He dropped into the conversation that both buildings were listed and made sure I realised the past interest of the Victorian Society in one of the buildings. There was a clear attempt in the conversation to draw me to comment on which church I favoured. I refrained from venturing any such opinions feeling it to be more important to listen than comment. He also mentioned that one of the ancillary buildings (used for Sunday School work) did not have planning consent for its current use.

This latter point caused me to find out more information about the building’s history and to seek legal advice from the diocesan registrar about where we stood with regard to its parochial use. It was clear from the conversation that there was a potential for any weakness here to be used as a lever to try to influence the outcome of the decision process. We therefore needed to know exactly where we stood. The current use was duly confirmed to be legal and the relevant statue was quoted for reference if necessary.

The public meeting drew approximately 60 people and was covered by the press. Someone later noted that there seemed to be a generational divide in the comments being made from the floor. By and large the older generation present favoured one church and the younger tended to favour the other. I began the meeting by outlining the factors which had led to this point, gave a slide show of the parish so that it was clear in people’s minds the geographical area which the churches served primarily. I also introduced the main criteria which I thought needed to be taken into account. These were also reproduced on a sheet which was given out at the end of the meeting. The criteria set were:

Where does the wider community look to?
Which building do people identify with when they look to the church? Does the community identify with the church and have a sense of ownership of it? How significant is this?
Which building will most enhance our ministry and mission?
Is one of the churches well placed to engage with the community and visitors in a way that the other is not? Is it visible, identifiable, easily accessed, situated in a good location, have sufficient space (a separate question), warm, attractive, a place people want to enter?
Will one of the buildings attract new worshippers where the other won’t?
Are there factors which make it more likely that one church will attract people where the other won’t? Will one of the churches actually serve to repel people for whatever reason?
Is one of the buildings easier to access than the other?
Can people get into the building easily? There is now a greater awareness of disabled access than was common in the past. Others also have difficulties: e.g. those with prams.
Does one of the buildings hold more people than the other?
Size can be critical. It was subsequently felt that this issue was more to do with adequacy of capacity for parish needs than size alone.
Is one of the buildings significantly cheaper to run than the other?
How much does it cost to heat, light, insure, clean etc?
Which building requires the least money spending on repairs?
This question is related to the one above, but focuses particularly on repairs to the structure. A critical factor is also whether the building is listed and its ability to attract grants from other bodies, thus reducing the potential cost to the community.
Is one of the buildings more likely to attract grants for major repairs from other bodies?
See above. A church can be more expensive to maintain, but because of its ability to attract grants can actually cost the community less. A church may also have a particular pull for potential donations which another may not have. This also reduces the cost and with grants being harder to obtain this may be a more critical factor than grants from statutory bodies.
Does one of the buildings lend itself more readily to another use?
In terms of declaring a building to be pastorally redundant, this factor is not that relevant, but it is something to bear in mind if all the crucial factors turn out to be equal.
Will one of the buildings standing empty be significantly more noticeable and a damaging symbol of decay?
Empty churches, standing derelict, give a powerful testimony to decline and desertion. It is better for the Church’s witness if the redundant churches which stand empty are not the most visually prominent. If this will be the case then there is an even greater missionary and pastoral priority to find another use for it.
Which building would our existing congregation prefer to stay open?
This is a last but not least question. The Church of England is for the whole community not just those who attend regularly. But the regular congregation are the ones who support it and enable its ministry to function. If they would all desert the place if the wrong choice was made then a home goal would be scored. Their presence may also indicate a greater ability of a particular church to engage with a community.

That sheet also included a prayer for use throughout the consultation period:

I chaired the first public meeting and was quite clear that my role was to draw out comments and acquire information. Apart from giving points of clarification where necessary, I did not comment on the points being made.

The parishioner who had previously visited me produced a report which he distributed to the meeting. I had not seen a copy of this in advance and naturally it caught me on the hop. He had appended his professional qualifications giving some the impression that he was the parish’s architect and that therefore the report carried a status which it did not in fact possess. There were inaccuracies within it and other points were made in a manner which gave a misleading impression. The point he had made to me in private about one of the ancillary building’s planning status was reproduced implying that the building was being used illegally. A clear attempt was being made to push the decision in one direction and to canvass opinion behind that view. Further copies of the report were later distributed round the town to solicit support for his campaign among influential and leading members of the community.

A number of those who spoke gave the impression that their approach had been co-ordinated, even orchestrated, and that each of them was dealing with a particular area allocated to them or agreed between them. This no doubt ensured that certain points were recorded as having been said and by different people heightening the impact of the comments.

Summary of observations:

Closing a church is a major project and will require a serious investment of time and resources to see it through.
There is no substitute for solid research. Commission professional advice on building matters and check legal facts with the Diocesan Registrar if there is any doubt. Anything less than this can prove a false economy in the long run.
It is important at an early stage to involve key diocesan officers/specialists and the relevant bishop and archdeacon. They need to know what is being proposed and if they can’t be convinced then no one else will be either.
It is worth getting a good idea of what the up-to-date process is before starting on it. Ask the relevant diocesan office.
Sadly it can’t be assumed that the PCC will keep confidentiality. Anything discussed in it is potentially in the public domain. Old allegiances beneath the surface can be stronger than is sometimes realised.
Learn how to manage the media. If you hand them a press release then there is a chance that everything that is said after that will be assimilated into what you have written. It will also help focus your thoughts so that you say what you want to say, not what you don’t. Ensure you are well focussed whenever you speak to them and beware of being ambushed. They are independent and have their own objectives in reporting, so they should not be regarded as being your ‘tame’ publicity agent. They are not, however good a relationship you have with them.
Prepare to be lobbied, subtly and unsubtly. Beware of entrapment.
Work out your criteria, what the main issues are, but be prepared to amend them if necessary. If you do amend them, admit it and explain why.
If a decision hasn’t been made then it is important that people with responsibility don’t act as if it has. Nothing will get people’s backs up more than a sham consultation process. It will also be detrimental in the long run.
Watch out for the skilled campaigners. They can stir up trouble and swing opinion which can take up inordinate amounts of time to rectify. Be as wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.

Footnotes:

¹Section 56(1) Pastoral Measure 1983; Canons B11 (2) and B14 A.
²Church Commissioners Pastoral Measure 1983: Code of Recommended Practice p 39
³Adapted by Ian Black from a prayer in Frank Colquhoun (ed) (1982) New Parish Prayers Hodder and Stoughton p 204 no. 451

18th May 2002

Last updated February 2008