A church survey from 2005 states that church-going in all categories has declined but the percentage of evangelical worshipers has risen. Now 40 percent of church attendees class themselves as evangelical as opposed to traditionalist Roman Catholic or Church of England. I have friends and family who are ardent churchgoers and I respect their views. I am not religious myself but if I were, I would go to somewhere uplifting and inspiring, not somewhere sombre and doom laden. It's not a problem of doctrine, it's one of marketing.
It seems to me that the old and dusty Church of England leaders are content to sit around arguing points of principle and trying to maintain the status quo while their congregations dwindle in favour of more energetic soul saving. It reminds me of the High Street chain Blockbusters who dominated the video and DVD Market for years but failed to take advantage of their position when streaming came along and consequently went bust. They could have been a market leader up there with Lovefilm and Netflix.
They have already sold of a number of churches which have turned into pubs and the like. As congregations drop, more churches will become financially unviable and there aren't enough clergy to cover them all anyway. What happens when they decide that the great cathedrals have become too expensive to maintain? Will the government step in and pay for them out of taxpayer's money as part of English Heritage or National Trust? The general trend is towards privatization for whatever the government can unload so they could end up being sold off. What companies would benefit most from huge buildings in the heart of the community? Retail outlets like supermarkets could be front runners.
Fortunately, the Church of England is far from broke so we don't have to worry about York Minster being run by ASDA just yet. A quick scan through the phone book for my local town still shows many more listings for pubs than it does for churches so the spirits of the imbibing kind still hold sway over the spirits of the redeeming kind.
The question you raise here is, why are you concerned with preserving places of worship when you admit to not being religious? We don't have to have religion and we don't have to be so deferent to the religious just in case we cause offence. I'm happy to be respectful, but if religion and the religious can't sustain themselves then so be it - they don't deserve special treatment just because they regard themselves as more worthy.
ReplyDeleteChris Packham was recently vilified for suggesting that pandas should be allowed to become extinct, but he actually made a very good point. The panda isn't declining through human activity per se, they just aren't adaptable enough to expect a long term future and the resources we're pouring into preserving them could be used in the preservation of multiple other species more successfully.
Similarly, if superstitious mumbo-jumbo a.k.a. religion can't survive in a more modern and enlightened world then that's evolution and we'll all be the better for it. All religions - whether they're dressed up in a facade of happy-clappiness or not - are based on fear, brainwashing and a preoccupation with sin. Your average atheist is no more or less good or bad than your average religious devotee, but we're probably less hypocritical, less gullible, less likely to get into serious conflict over differing views and more likely to make full use of our time here than wishing for something better once we've gone.
Hi Stevie, thanks for the comment.Personally, I agree with a lot of what you say. The two points I was trying (and clearly failing) to make were firstly, that the C of E is hastening its own demise by, to use your example,not evolving. and secondly, what would happen to the magnificent buildings which are as much a part of our heritage as the country homes and castles if the C of E decided they couldn't afford them. We don't need castles any more as the fuedal lords are all gone but I wouldnt want to see them disappear. I wasn't trying to argue for or against religion, thats a whole new ball game.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to keep the buildings for the sake of history, but I feel they're worth losing if it means we lose the religions that go with them - all religions and all the associated buildings.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't fail - I just fell into one of my (night-shift enhanced) rants against religion! Sorry.