Over the Easter period, an article appeared from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian offering the view that the church buildings of England should be taken over by the state, in particular by local authorities, who would make much better use of them than the Anglican Church, which is presented as a self interested sect. I have to say that I am somewhat unconvinced by a number of factors in the article.
Firstly, a good deal of it is hyperbole, such as claiming that the church turns away 'outsiders' for weddings and funerals. This it simply cannot legally do. All are able to get married in their parish church regardless of matters of faith. The only restriction are those imposed by the laws of the state, which require residence in the parish or other qualifying connection in the case of a marriage. Many churches and clergy wish they were rather less constrained by rules, but it is the state that places burdens upon them.
In my experience rural communities rather like their church's offering of weddings, funerals and baptisms, and there was never a hint of tension. Indeed, many rural communities do not want to see their pretty church become a 'wedding venue' for all, regardless of connection to the village, because of the pressure it puts on parking in narrow roads every weekend during summer. One suspects that what Jenkins has in mind here is not that the offerings of the church are inadequate in themselves, but rather that he would like to see civil celebrants being able to use country churches to cater for some of the Baby Boomer incomers into these communities, who may have little interest in the traditional offerings of the village and church community. This contention therefore may say a lot more about Jenkins's assumptions about life than those of the actual communities.
Secondly, there is a lot of misrepresentation of the historical role of the parish church going on here. Reading Simon Jenkins' article might lead you to believe that the church building in the middle ages was a sort of collectivist commune and social centre! However, the reality of the medieval parish church was that it existed for social control of worship as part of a feudal system. Instead of peasants running off to a far away minster church, the local parish church meant that the religious life of peasants could be controlled. Eventually, during the late middle ages, an independent laity, freed from serfdom, exercised its rights in forming certain guilds and confraternities in parish churches that made an impact on the fabric of the building, but it did so in a world in which the sacred and secular were not divided as they are today, and so the fraternity's primary aim was likely to be religious, with secondary goals of promoting a certain trade.
Jenkins' argument generally ignores the fact that a majority of churches would have been locked for much of the time during the middle ages and were constructed primarily as places of worship. That medieval churches were ornately decorated with pictures, glass and statues, and had lots of candles burning in them, should make us doubt the story of secular space that Jenkins wants to promote. The reality is that medieval churches were primarily places in which one was meant to encounter the worship of heaven, and at Reformation they become preaching centres in which one encountered the word. Either way, the religious role of the building was fairly manifest. Yes, church ales were held in churchyards, but to regard such events as signs that the role of the church was more social then religious is to misread the evidence.
Thirdly, there is the role of the state. Do we really think that nationalised church buildings would particularly be responsive to the needs of the community? Was British Leyland particularly responsive the needs of the community when producing the Morris Marina and Austin Allegro? Henry VIII promised that dissolved monastic properties would become schools and colleges: Furness, Fountains, Castle Acre and Tintern suggest how much hope we might have in such schemes. The likely result of taking the building into the hands of the council is that it would be locked up so that it could be kept in good order for those who wish to hire it. It would cease to be truly public space, offered to all by the church, and become a space available for private hire.
Ultimately, Jenkins fails to understand the matter from the church's perspective. For centuries the church has poured clergy resources into small churches that were often unsustainable at the hight of Christendom, and for around two centuries these parishes have suffered such rural depopulation that they ceased to be viable stand alone units over 150 years ago. The population is now generally urban and highly mobile. In such circumstances many rural congregations do a brilliant job in keeping their church well maintained, clean and open, and provide worship and community throughout the year. I would rather trust them to speak for their community than those with a political axe to grind.
No comments:
Post a Comment