Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000: Closing the Church Door 3031175964, 9783031175961

Citation preview

Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000 Closing the Church Door Denise Bonnette

Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000

Denise Bonnette

Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000 Closing the Church Door

Denise Bonnette Llandrindod Wells, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-17596-1 ISBN 978-3-031-17597-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Alex Linch shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For David.

Acknowledgements

I would not have had the confidence or courage to begin a Ph.D. had I not participated in the part-time Local History M.A. offered by the Centre for English Local History at the University of Leicester. It was an inspirational course that renewed my passion for local history and was an excellent precursor to further academic research. I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Keith Snell, Professor Elizabeth Hurren and Dr. Richard Butler who have provided excellent support over the years of research. Andrea Mulkeen, Harvey Howlett and their colleagues in the Church of England Closed Churches Division have given me free access to their records, without which the research would have been much more challenging. Andrea has been particularly helpful, and I am grateful for her support. Thank you also to staff in the Diocese of Lincoln for their guidance and information. At a time when local archives and libraries are suffering from financial challenges, staff in Lincoln and Leicester have always tried their best to help with access to relevant records to aid the research. My thanks also go to those with whom I discussed aspects of the research, including the late Professor Dennis Mills, Professor David Stocker, the Cold Hanworth History Society and former clergy. More recently, I have been very grateful for the guidance from Professor Sarah Lloyd, the professional maps created by Dr. Richard Jones, and the kind permission from the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archeology to use their photographs.

vii

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Finally, I could not have embarked on a seven-year study period without the unfailing support and patience of my husband David.

About This Book

This book explores twentieth-century Anglican church redundancy in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire from a local ‘bottom-up’ perspective, to add to ongoing academic debate on secularisation. Using previously unseen Church Commissioner, diocesan and individual church records, it challenges the inevitability of church redundancy and identifies explicit causes, aside from secularisation as key tipping points into closure. For the first time it traces secular and ecclesiastical legislation intended to protect the national heritage, and highlights myriad ways official Church agencies and heritage bodies struggled to collaborate in redundancy processes. Individual chapters further address: the effect of external cultural and demographic change in urban and rural environments; the consequences of internal Church of England decision making in response to a rapidly changing society, shortage of clergy and unwise financial investments; the reality behind the rhetoric of church attendance data and its implications for redundancy; and the narrative of church redundancy for a community, especially concerning demolition, alternative use and churchyard disposal.

ix

Contents

1

Introduction Historiography Secularisation Internal Secularisation Community and Belonging Heritage Sources and Methodology The Case Study Counties and Dioceses Redundant Churches References

1 4 5 8 10 13 17 20 25 35

2

The Church, the State and National Heritage: Contentious Debate Early Legislation Strengthening the Power of the Church Towards a Strategy: Pastoral Measure 1968 (PM1968) The 1968 Measure in Action: Tension and Amendment Increasing Financial Need Conclusion References

43 44 47 54 59 64 68 72

The Church as an Institution—Finance, Ministry, Repair and Redundancy Beginning to Adapt: 1940s and 1950s

77 78

3

xi

xii

4

5

6

7

CONTENTS

Significant Changes: 1960s and 1970s Financial Pressures: 1980s and 1990s Issues of Maintenance and Repair Bureaucratic Delays and Decay Conclusion References

82 87 94 99 109 115

Community: Cultural and Demographic Change, Reaction and Response Urban Change Rural Change Responding to Socio-Cultural Change Community Response to Church Redundancy Reaction to the Alternative Use of Church Buildings Conclusion References

121 124 131 134 138 145 152 157

Personal Religiosity: Belonging, Believing and Behaving Religious Choice Patterns of Belonging Patterns of Behaving The Impact of Increasing Religious Diversity Attitudes to Non-Christian Purchasers of Redundant Churches Churchyard Sales Conclusion References

161 162 165 168 173 179 183 188 194

Collaboration: Church of England Agencies and the Heritage Movement Call for Expert-Led Policy Tense Beginnings Intervention Architectural Value Alternative Use and Demolition Conclusion References

199 203 206 211 216 223 229 236

Conclusion References

239 247

CONTENTS

xiii

Appendices

251

Index

265

About the Author

Denise Bonnette following the achievement of a B.Ed. at the University of Leicester in 1981, she began her career as a teacher in Northamptonshire. She taught in several schools in a variety of roles, becoming a headteacher in her mid-thirties. She subsequently worked as an education advisor for a local authority, gradually taking on more senior roles. In 2005, she established her own education consultancy, working for a range of organisations. During this time, she studied for a part-time M.A. with the University of Leicester Centre for English Local History. In 2013, she was awarded an M.A. with merit and her dissertation focused on the social significance of church pew seating. Such was her developing passion for local history, she enrolled for a part-time Ph.D. with the Leicester University Centre, while continuing to work in education consultancy. In 2015, she retired early and moved to Wales with her husband, continuing her degree. While in Wales, she became chair of trustees for Credu, a charity for carers and undertook several other voluntary roles. Sadly, her husband died in 2019, just prior to her completing her doctorate in 2020. She now writes reviews for historical books and is involved in history research projects. Her work has been published in the Family and Community History journal. She continues to be an independent researcher and is considering researching church redundancy in Wales.

xv

Abbreviations

ABRC AMS CC CCC CCCC CCT DAC DBF DoE DRCC FFC FJM GG HBC HBMC HCPT LA LCC LPL NA NT PCC PM QI RCF ROLLR

Advisory Board for Redundant Churches Ancient Monument Society Church Commissioners Council for the Care of Churches Central Council for the Care of Churches Churches Conservation Trust Diocesan Advisory Committee Diocesan Board of Finance Department of the Environment Diocesan Redundant Churches Committee Friends of Friendless Churches Faculty Jurisdiction Measure Georgian Group Historic Buildings Council Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission Historic Churches Preservation Trust Lincolnshire Archives Leicester City Council Lambeth Palace Library National Archives National Trust Parochial Church Council Pastoral Measure Quinquennial Inspection Redundant Churches Fund Leicestershire and Rutland Record Office xvii

xviii SPAB TS VS

ABBREVIATIONS

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings Twentieth Century Society Victorian Society

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3 Fig. 1.4 Fig. 1.5 Fig. 1.6

Fig. 1.7

Fig. 1.8

Fig. 1.9

Districts of Leicestershire (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) Districts of Lincolnshire (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) Redundant churches in the Leicester Diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Author) Redundant churches in Leicester City, 1968–2000 (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) Redundant churches in the Lincoln Diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Author) The number of parish churches and chapels of ease made redundant nationally between 1968 and 2000 (Source Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007) The number of parish churches and chapels of ease made redundant in each diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007) National and regional reasons cited for redundancy, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007) The number of contested redundancies in each diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007)

21 23 25 26 27

28

30

32

34

xix

xx

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4

Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6

Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3

Fig. 4.4 Fig. 4.5

Fig. 4.6

Fig. 4.7

Stages through which a Church Measure must pass for approval by the House of Commons and the House of Lords Pastoral scheme, 1968 (Source Extracted from PM1968) Redundancy scheme, 1968 (Source Extracted from PM1968) The Ormsby Group of churches, 1950 (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) External view of West Barkwith church, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) External view of West Barkwith church showing damage to end of building, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Internal view of West Barkwith church showing state of interior, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) External view of Withern church, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Internal view of Withern church showing the condition of the building, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) (a) Area surrounding Leicester St George, c. 1910 (b) Area surrounding Leicester St George, c. 1980 (Source Created by Dr Richard Jones) Wildsworth church exterior, c. 1981 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Parishes of Belgrave, Leicester (Source ROLLR, DE6832, Leicester St Mark’s redundancy papers; Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) Lincoln St Martin, c. 1968 (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology) Muckton church, 1983, now demolished (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology) National alternative use, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical Database, 2007) Leicester Diocese percentage for each alternative use, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division database, 2007)

47 57 58 80 100

101

102 106

107

128 133

135 139

146

149

150

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 4.8

Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3 Fig. 6.4 Fig. 6.5 Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7

Fig. 6.8 Fig. 6.9

Fig. 6.10

Fig. 6.11

Fig. 6.12

Lincoln Diocese percentage for each alternative use, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division database, 2007) Areas of Leicester where immigrants settled from the 1950s onwards (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) Places of worship in the Belgrave area of Leicester (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones) Great steeping church exterior, c. 1975 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Great steeping church, c. 1975, illustrating the condition of the interior (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Old Woodhall church exterior, c. 1970 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Old Woodhall church interior, c. 1970 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Salmonby church exterior, c. 1973, prior to demolition (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Salmonby church interior, c. 1973 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners) Number of vestings in the RCF across the dioceses, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division database, 2007) Vestings in the RCF by century built, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division database, 2007) National statistics for demolition by build date of church, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division Statistical database, 2007) Lincoln Diocese—statistics for demolition by build date of church, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division Statistical database, 2007) Little Carlton church exterior, 1991 (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology) Little Carlton church interior, 1991 (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology)

xxi

151

176 178 201

202 208 209 213 214

219 220

224

225

228

229

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3

Reasons cited for church redundancy, 1968–2000 Redundant or potentially redundant churches in each diocese, 1960 Breakdown of contributions for the RCF from the Church and the state, 1969 to 1994 The reported condition of churches in the Lincoln Diocese, categorised by alternative future use The reported condition of churches in the Leicester Diocese, categorised by alternative future use Time taken between pastoral scheme and redundancy scheme in the Leicester Diocese Time taken between pastoral scheme and redundancy scheme in the Lincoln Diocese Time taken between informal closure and pastoral scheme in the Leicester Diocese Time taken between informal closure and pastoral scheme in the Lincoln Diocese Population in Leicester city parishes, 1940–1982 Types of alternative use, 1968–2000 New places of Christian worship in Leicester built in the twentieth century Average communicant numbers for rural redundant churches in the dioceses of Lincoln and Leicester Average communicant numbers for urban redundant churches in the dioceses of Leicester and Lincoln

31 55 66 97 99 103 103 104 105 126 148 164 169 171

xxiii

xxiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1

Average Sunday attendance in Leicester Christianity South Deanery churches, 1987 Churches made redundant nationally, citing diversity as a reason, 1968–2000 Data from the list of possible redundant churches for the Lincoln Diocese, 1968

172 174 221

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

While your editorial on the Church of England gives a balanced picture of the tensions within the church between nostalgia for the past and a readiness to face the harsh realities of today, it is off-key in suggesting that opposition to change is universal among ‘furious’ congregations and clergy. While some may let nostalgia cloud their common sense, those whose hearts God has touched remain eager to see their beloved church reinvigorated and renewed, and will give anything a try, however costly, that might restore life and hope. (The Guardian 2021b)

In this letter to The Guardian, Reverend Giles accurately captures the mood in the Church of England in the third decade of the twentyfirst century, recognising ever-present financial challenges and tensions between nostalgia for what once was (or thought to be), and the Church’s spiritual mission. Its response to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen these tensions resurface in the broader context of a 40% fall in physical attendance at church services in England over the last 30 years. During the pandemic, the Church appeared to be in retreat, churches were locked, and services moved online. Collections were not taken, accelerating its income loss. The Church has responded with new proposals, such as Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell’s controversial vision of a ‘mixed ecology Church’ (Archbishop of York 2020). The subsequent outcry re-established historically entrenched positions, which © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_1

1

2

D. BONNETTE

are addressed in this book. The Church has been accused of taking a soulless managerial approach to budgetary crisis and proposing the ‘biggest act of church vandalism since the dissolution of the monasteries’ (The Guardian 2021a). Nationally, there is concern that any radical change will affect the sustainability of church buildings. Over three quarters of the fifteen and a half thousand Anglican churches in England are listed as historic and demand costly maintenance, the burden of which falls on parishes. A worst-case estimate in 2021 was that 368 church buildings nationally would be at risk of closure within five years, especially as the Church was reviewing its processes and consultation methods for closing places of worship (Church Times 2021). Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the speed of potential church closures. Yet the complex question of church redundancy is not a recent phenomenon, but a historical trend that has occurred over centuries. Financial crisis, declining attendance, parish reorganisation, clerical shortages and building maintenance issues have been recurring problems for the Church of England, and the period since World War II has seen many debates and discussions about when and how to close the church door. Church redundancy created challenges and dilemmas extending far beyond the problem of dealing with empty and unwanted buildings. It generated great cultural discomfort which was intimately connected with significant social changes in post-war Britain, the Church of England’s status as a privileged institution, and the rising popularity and influence of the heritage movement. Redundancy brought to the surface far-reaching social and cultural tensions, which remain unresolved and have been re-ignited by debate about church building closures since the pandemic. Clive Field (2022, p. 3) points out that ‘historians have made a surprisingly modest contribution to the evolving historiography of religion in Britain between 1970 and 2020’. Church redundancy is closely linked with the history of religious, cultural and social change and as such, it has an important place in modern British history. Studies do not often take account of regional differences; thus, this book seeks to explore Anglican church redundancy through the lens of case studies in a significant Midlands heartland. It takes a ‘bottom up’ perspective to explore the redundancy debate and test the cultural, social and religious realities. Set within a larger national picture of church closure, county studies unpick the dynamics to unravel wider concepts of secularisation and changing community and belonging in the twentieth century. They detail the effect of broader processes and the idiosyncratic, place-based limits which

1

INTRODUCTION

3

contribute to broader cultural debates. Using a ‘tipping point’ analogy, causal factors for closure are analysed to understand what ultimately led to redundancies in the chosen regions (Gladwell 2000). These often arose from complex local circumstances and can seldom be attributed to a single unifying issue. This book identifies the myriad ways in which official church organisations and external agencies have collaborated or attempted to collaborate within the Anglican church redundancy process. Church buildings provoke impassioned responses, attitudes which are the result of a historical process, an inheritance from the nineteenth century (Whyte 2017). They ‘move and communicate as well as house and accommodate’ (p. 182) and thus their closure and sale create a series of overlapping dilemmas which have to be navigated: the Church attempting to pursue Christian mission, balanced with resolving practical and financial realities in a rapidly changing society; the inherent tensions within local communities between non-churchgoers and worshippers and their different reactions to church closure; the sensitive issue of selling historic church buildings for fitting alternative use in a changing religious landscape; the tension created by a church building’s spiritual value and perceived heritage value; and secular intervention in Church of England affairs. The narrative behind these dilemmas and tensions is teased out and space made for local voices and community perspectives. Secularisation can be operationalised at various levels (Field 2019, p. 12): the state, including the presence of religion and religious values in legislature government and public life; the institutional, including church accommodation, ministry and finance; the individual in terms of faith and its relative importance in defining personal identity; and the cultural permeation of religious ideas and influences. Hence, the following chapters broadly consider these levels and examine church redundancy through a 55-year time frame between 1945 and 2000. It was a period of rapid social, economic and attitudinal change when Britain became far more culturally diverse, and communities altered significantly. The Church of England was attempting to modernise and allegiance to it began to weaken. 1968 was a key legislative date for the church redundancy process when a new Pastoral Measure was introduced, and 1995 saw the beginning of more radical and extensive changes to the ecclesiastical legislative landscape. How we understand church and community during this period is not fixed. Thus, this book addresses whether redundancy is an ‘inevitable’ consequence of secularisation, and to what

4

D. BONNETTE

extent this perspective became so entrenched that it shaped the actual decision-making process. Leicester and Lincoln, two dioceses in the East Midlands, are the focus for study. They share a border, are both primarily rural, have a high proportion of agricultural land and historically had rural estates that strongly influenced community development. The city of Leicester is a striking example of radical demographic change through the twentieth century. Between 1968 and 2000 the Lincoln Diocese had the third highest number of church redundancies after London and Salisbury, and the Leicester Diocese had the second highest percentage (after Chichester) of formal objections to closure in relation to the total number of redundancies in the diocese. These regions, therefore, offer an ideal historical prism through which to explore church redundancy and offer a new ‘bottom up’ perspective.

Historiography Anglican church redundancy has been explored in a variety of contexts. For example, Linda Monckton (2013) of Historic England has provided a very useful analysis of trends and raises important issues about demographics and geography in relation to redundant churches. Trevor Cooper (2004) explores the issue of keeping parish churches open, and Steven Saxby (2020) investigates urban church closures. Andrew Chandler (2006) includes church redundancy in his thorough study of the Church Commissioners. Many general assumptions are made about reasons for church closure and Anglican church redundancy is informed by a very wide historiography, the most significant being secularisation, which is a highly contested concept. Bryan Wilson’s (1966) influential approach defines secularisation as a process whereby religion has lost influence at the societal, institutional and individual levels, linked with the decline of community. It is classically theorised as an inevitable consequence of modernity, associated with the rise of individualism and rationalism (Wilson 1966). Indicators often used to measure its extent include belonging to a religious denomination, believing in certain religious values and behaving in a religious manner. Other key themes underpinning the research for this book are community and belonging, and heritage. Each theme has impacted on the church redundancy process and researchers have often understated or misconstrued the complex nature of redundancy decisions. Much use is made of statistical data to

1

INTRODUCTION

5

underpin theories of a decline in religious belief and the headline figures to 2019 illustrate a weakening of religious affiliation (all from Church of England 2020). Usual Sunday attendance declined by 55% between 1970 and 2019, from 1.542 million to 690,000. Rites of passage for baptism and death also declined significantly: the percentage of Anglican church baptisms fell from 70% of all infant births in 1930 to 8% in 2019, and the percentage of church funerals declined from 46% in 2001 to 23% in 2019. Confirmation, which is an important demonstration of belief and belonging, has also declined dramatically, from 191,000 in 1960 to 13,355 in 2019, although adult baptisms have increased. Secularisation Debates about secularisation occupied many Victorian commentators, and since World War II, it has attracted much scholarly attention (e.g. Wickham 1957; Inglis 1963; McLeod 1974; Gilbert 1976; Best 1979; Cox 1982; Smith 1994; Morris 2003; Brown 2009; Bruce and Glendinning 2010; Field 2022). The concept is very complicated, with interwoven strands and disagreement about its extent, chronology and the relative importance of each contributory reason for religious decline. A wealth of statistical data on church membership is used to evidence the decline of belonging. Robert Currie et al.’s (1977) highly influential analysis of church membership statistics for all denominations figure prominently in research. The Brierley Consultancy (www.brierleyconsult ancy.com) provides up-to-date key data on church membership and attendance across denominations, and the Church of England also publishes its own statistics. However, use of statistics to evidence secularisation has been heavily criticised. Currie et al.’s (1977) conclusions do not focus on churchgoing patterns; Carol Roberts (2003) confirms that historical data for the Church of England are less useful than they might be; Robin Gill (2003) dismisses use of attendance data and calls for intensive study of local churches to explore the myths surrounding empty churches; and Martin Percy (2013) queries the use of statistics as a measurement of faith. Revisionist perspectives have questioned the link between modernisation and secularisation, and the chronology of secularisation has been widely debated. Theories have been derived from refined case studies of the personal experiences of ordinary people in different locations using oral history rather than statistics on church membership. Participation in

6

D. BONNETTE

church life has been found to be more vibrant than previously appreciated and historians have offered various chronologies of the decline in religious belief. Alan Gilbert (1976) who concludes that by 1850 both chapel and church appealed more to the middle classes sets the decline of churchgoing as occurring in the late nineteenth century. In his study of Lambeth, Jeffrey Cox (1982) is critical of what he calls ‘the inevitability theory’ surrounding modernisation and observes a more gradual, nuanced and regionalised decline in religious belief. He also reveals that regional differences in religious adherence and practice have been understated. Hugh McLeod (1989) is persuaded that the workingclass churchgoing minority was larger than is generally recognised, and that churchgoing declined very gradually. In Oldham, Mark Smith (1994) argues strongly for high levels of working-class participation in church life and rejects the language of decline. Meanwhile, Simon Green (1996, p. 388; 2012, p. 32) fixes the 1920s as the beginning of the eventual decline in religious belief, when ‘the local religious classes lost heart’. Callum Brown (2001) argues that suburbanisation between 1870 and 1940 accelerated the decline of religion and worship in people’s lives and suggests that, with the advent of urban planning, mass movements to modern estates contributed to the religious alienation of the young, who had many new distractions from church attendance. Brown (2006) also asserts that by the end of the twentieth century, Britain was one of the most secular places in the world. Brown (2009) identifies a Christian revival after World War II and no significant events until the 1960s, when irreversible decline was prompted by the changing roles and greater freedom of women in society. McLeod (1989) also describes what he terms the ‘long sixties’, from 1958 to 1974, as a vital period of internal decline for Christendom, increasing affluence, sexual and gender cultural change, and the rise of civil societies based on a more secular ethos. Green (2012), too, asserts that Britain ceased to be a Christian country by the 1960s. Field (2015, 2017, 2019), in his broad and statistical analysis of the timing of secularisation, found a gradual and uneven decline. The secularisation thesis has been challenged in various ways. Sarah Williams (1999) draws attention to churches being remarkably pervasive social institutions and refers to affiliation with a church through attendance by a family member. Historians of religion, including McLeod (2000) and Cox (2003), view secularisation as a descriptive account of historically contingent religious change, which is neither uniform nor inevitable. However, Bruce (2016) rejects the suggestion that religion

1

INTRODUCTION

7

has changed in nature rather than declined. Grace Davie (2000, p. 38) suggests that religious influences continue to permeate society and that churches remain ‘significant players’. She theorises believing without belonging, relating to a mismatch between people’s professed religious values and their churchgoing and religious practice. This theory has been criticised for its limitations, for example, David Voas and Alasdair Crockett (2005) see each generation as less religious than the last, and as far as the church is concerned, increasing numbers of people believe that belonging doesn’t matter. Davie (2000, p. 59) has developed a theory of vicarious belief, whereby churches perform a moral, spiritual and social role on behalf of the population with a ‘willingness of the population to delegate the religious sphere to the professional ministries of the state churches’ without attending. She also describes an implicit understanding that churches are a form of public utility, with an obligation to perform their role as required and to uphold religious memory (Davie 2006). Hence, she argues that people have an implicit religious belief that at times becomes more explicit, often when confronted by death. She identifies a culture of consumption: ‘the churches need to be there in order that I may attend them if I so choose’ (Davie 2006, p. 281). However, too much choice has implications for church sustainability (Davie 2015; Voas 2017). For Bruce and Glendinning (2010), the Church of England has traditionally competed with other denominations, offering voluntary rather than obligatory affiliation. This choice ‘undermines the taken-forgrantedness of religion’ and ‘weakens its social presence’ (p. 109). From the 1950s sample surveys have investigated the extent of religious belief in Britain to varying degrees. Ben Clements’ (2015) research shows that ‘attitudes in Britain have moved to some extent in a direction that fits with wider processes of secularisation and perceptions of declining religious authority in recent decades’ (p. 91). Whether growth in non-Christian faith groups supports or challenges, the secularisation theory is also disputed. In comparing the religiosity of ethnic minority and white British identity groups, Crockett and Voas (2006) find that while ethnic minorities are becoming increasingly important to religion in Britain, their trajectory of generational decline is similar to that for the white population. Bruce (2013) argues that the secularisation explanation for decline remains unaffected if British agnostics are replaced with people from more religious cultures. However, Linda Woodhead (2016, p. 148) disagrees, believing that ‘there is little doubt …

8

D. BONNETTE

that the growing presence of non-Christian “world” religions, particularly Islam, is making Britain more rather than less religious’. Internal Secularisation Over time, historians have challenged the view that religious decline has been driven by social forces. Instead, they have focused on internal deficiencies in modern religious organisations, both in terms of dealing with external pressures and, for the Church of England, changing the internal locus of power. Kenneth Thompson (1970) identifies a greater emphasis on rationality, accountability and productivity, which meant that the Church was increasingly pre-occupied with immediate, empirical and pragmatic ends. Alan Bryman (1989, p. 41) considers how church bureaucracy has increased and suggests that ‘the growth of synodical government has intensified the amount of influence at the apex of the diocese’. According to Mark Chaves (1994), secularisation is best understood as a decline in the scope of religious authority. Green (1996, p. 387) sees the decline of the churches after World War I as a product of an internal deficiency as much as of external pressures. McLeod (2000) attributes general Church decline (Anglican, Catholic and Nonconformist) to the various strategies adopted (or refused) by the Churches themselves. Competition between denominations during the early twentieth century and efforts by ministers and priests to coax and convert new members are examples of such strategies. In other words, the failure of all Christian faith groups to work together led to a competitive atmosphere that, ironically, deterred many congregation members and potential recruits. Taking up this theme, Gill (2003, p. 316) claims that ‘by the turn of the century rural and urban churches and chapels were facing acute problems that were at least in part of their own making’, such as organisational structures and clergy pay. Bob Jackson (2005, p. 9) very clearly identifies internal failings in the Church of England as an impetus for its own decline. He acknowledges that this has happened in a context of significant social change but argues that the Church has been characterised by inaction and uncertainty in managing change, in a culture lacking evidence-based decision-making. Chandler (2006) comprehensively traces the changing role and emphasis of the Church Commissioners through the twentieth century. He charts the Church’s organisational response, criticising its failure to analyse the

1

INTRODUCTION

9

sustainability and impact of local management strategies (p. 476). Morris (2012, p. 219) describes ‘yet another, less intense discussion [which] has centred on the adaptive strategies of churches in the modern period as they sought to “modernise” their ministries, liturgies, missionary, and educational methods and bureaucracies to cope with the challenges of rapid social change’. The consequent disenchantment with policies and practices pursued by the Church and its clergy is traced by Clive Field (2014, see also Burns 1999). A particularly hostile but heavily criticised account of the Church of England’s weaknesses and alienation after 1986 is offered by Andrew Brown and Linda Woodhead (2016). For them, ‘the warm blood of Church-society relations had largely drained away’ and ‘all that was left of establishment was a constitutional husk’ (p. 205). Peter Webster (2020) highlights the profound shift in the nature of the relationship between the Church and state in the twentieth century, and the effect on subsequent ecclesiastical legislation. The most recent theories by Sam Brewitt-Taylor (2013, 2018) and Callum Brown (2019) challenge the gradualist theory of secularisation from differing perspectives. Brewitt-Taylor argues that secularisation was an invented and powerful new meta-narrative originating from, amongst other factors, elite radical British Christians. He suggests that they created new assumptions about Britain’s destiny, which achieved media dominance and inspired the cultural shift of the 1960s. Publications like Honest to God (Robinson 1963), written by an Anglican bishop, argued that churches should embrace secularisation and focus their efforts on social activism rather than Sunday services. Marginalisation of traditional religion in the modern world became a dominant belief heavily endorsed by Church of England leaders. According to Brewitt-Taylor (2013, p. 331), this had significant secularising consequences for the Church, with catastrophic losses of congregations. Brown (2019) argues that two groups contributed to the battleground of religious change and the decline in religious belief: atheist, Humanist, rationalist and secularist campaigners for social change, and conservative Christian critics of ‘permissive’ reform who felt a duty to promote Christian norms and values. From the 1960s, secular liberalism secularised the national narrative. These are the core features of the complex and long-running secularisation debate. The causes are disputed; the statistics may be questionable; levels of participation in church life are in doubt; the Anglican Church’s conduct and competitiveness have been questioned; many historians remain convinced by an ‘inevitability thesis’; the relevance of the growth

10

D. BONNETTE

of non-Christian faiths is questioned; and some think secularisation is a fabricated concept. In this study of Anglican redundant churches secularisation is closely interwoven with the second theme of community and belonging. Community and Belonging A wide range of mostly pessimistic, overlapping and competing interpretations of community and belonging have been adopted, taking sociological and historical perspectives (Hillery 1955; Macfarlane 1977; Calhoun 1980; Short 1992; Seymour and Watkins 1995; Shepard and Withington 2000; Deacon and Donald 2004; Mills 2004; Royle 2009; Snell 2009; French 2011). There is general agreement that community involves a place where people have something in common, most often understood as a locality, a shared interest that links people together, such as religious belief (Cohen 1985), and a sense of attachment to a place, group or idea (Willmott 1989; Cohen 1982). However, Craig Calhoun (1980, p. 370) argues that ‘organisation is the crucial factor which may make a community (or a society) out of a mere aggregation of people’. Communities are demarcated by boundaries, whether physical or administrative, and the criteria defining who is in a community, may make it exclusionary. Elizabeth Bott (1957) suggests that social relationships and networks may extend beyond boundaries to form a community, while David Lee and Howard Newby (1983) argue that we find our deepest sense of belonging in relationships in social networks, which may be more significant than with neighbours living in the same locality. Anthony Cohen (1985, p. 12) demonstrates that not all boundaries are obvious. They may exist in the ‘minds of the beholders’, which is the symbolic aspect of community. These ideas are brought together in Keith Snell’s (2016, p. 8) definition used in this study, which considers community from a historical perspective: community has historically above all been experienced in the ordering of human associations in a known space or locality, such as a village, parish, workplace or urban district. It has related to people known and conversed with at a face-to-face level, it has a spatial history with implications for present relationships, it resided in everyday knowledge and dealings and it involved a sense of belonging.

1

INTRODUCTION

11

Over time, the core literature has become more pessimistic, offering a multitude of reasons why community no longer exists as it did previously, although Snell (2016, p. 5) confirms that ‘our modern anxieties about weakening community are not new’. Explanations include the modern state’s replacement of the Church’s role in education, welfare and healthcare (Jones 2000; Ottewill and Slocombe 2009); a decline in the importance of the parish and loss of parochial identity (Addleshaw 1953; Tate 1969; Ambler 2000; Pounds 2000; Wrightson 2011); rapid modernisation through the mid-twentieth century, and the resulting materialistic and individualistic approach to life that changed people’s priorities (e.g. Macfarlane 1987; Snell 2016) and wider networks created by globalisation, enabling people to reach beyond geographical limitations (e.g. Castles and Davidson 2000; Waters 2001). Many historians see modernisation as having a corrosive effect on a sense of community and belonging as defined in the historiography on secularisation. From the mid-twentieth century, greater use of cars resulting in separation of home and workplace, and the reduced cost of travelling are said to have contributed to weakening the sense of community. Rapid globalisation and the accompanying technological explosion have also had personal, cultural and economic effects on communities, promoting centralisation, which affects belonging and identity. In studying Anglican redundant churches, the most applicable geographical unit is the parish. It is broadly agreed that the church was central to the parish and maintained a sense of community belonging in terms of location (Strong 2008; Jenkins 1999). However, there is disagreement about the chronology of the decline of the parish’s power and the relative importance of the Church of England over time (Tate 1969; Chadwick 1971; Pounds 2000; Snell 2009). The Church has always been seen as having both religious and secular functions, and descriptions of its decline are powerfully negative. For instance, William Tate (1969, p. 11) sees the ‘strangulation of the parish’ as having occurred with the establishment of the Poor Law of 1834. Owen Chadwick (1971, pp. 193–194), too, argues that ‘the removal of secular business left the vestry without life’. Hence, Norman Pounds (2000, p. 510) maintains that ‘before the Reformation the church in the physical sense had provided the chief unifying force within the parish’ but ‘community activities died out in the nineteenth century’. Ambler and Snell offer a more optimistic view of parish community and belonging, tracing community change rather than decline. In his study of religious life in Lincolnshire,

12

D. BONNETTE

Ambler (2000, p. 3) sees parishioners as active participants in change rather than part of a disappearing world: The values, sentiments, and attitudes that were developed as parishes responded to external change, and which informed the conduct of their affairs, were part of the process through which they became communities rather than just administrative units.

Snell (2009) writes of the remarkable growth and vitality of urban parishes from 1834, stressing that this process of renewal continued for much longer than is often supposed. Especially relevant to the church redundancy debate are the Anglican community’s social networks and relationships with the parish (Ambler 2000; French 2011). John Poulton (1985, p. 114) finds that the church is ‘the embodiment of a community’s history and of its life’ and is, therefore, ‘not merely stone or bricks and mortar’. Douglas Davies et al. (1991, pp. 118–120) argue that ‘the church constitutes an element of the community identity of individuals and they see the parish church as an important aspect of local life’, and that old churches, particularly, gave congregations a sense of belonging to a specific Christian community. Relatively few people, they say, see the church building as unimportant, and even if they do not attend, many feel that they belong to an overarching Anglican ‘tradition’ (Russell 1986; Davies et al. 1991, p. 120), although they no longer fund the church (Percy 2006). This emotional attachment to the Anglican church and the parish developed over time, explaining why, according to some historians, certain churches survived, regardless of fluctuating attendance levels. Pounds (2000, p. 373) believes that ‘the church was at the heart of its parish. The two were inseparable, and neither was conceivable without the other’. In other words, church redundancy was part of a sustained process of growth, retraction and renewal. A wealth of literature focuses on the changing perceptions of the place of the parish church in the community. It is argued that the church remains an important aspect of local life and an element of individuals’ community identity (Davies et al. 1991, pp. 118–120), although Mandler (1997) and Brace (1999, pp. 515–516) believe that the building forms a central element of the nostalgic image of an idyllic English village. These traditional ideals are enhanced by newcomers who have migrated to rural areas and have tended to bring their cultural values, which

1

INTRODUCTION

13

focus on preservation (Lewis 2000; Burchard 2012). Historians broadly accept that this caused conflict because incomers attempted to limit growth to sustain the traditional elements they preferred (Radford 1970; McLaughlin 2002). Writers investigating the effect of urban planning initiatives include Keith Shaw and Fred Robinson (1998), Simon Gunn (2013) and Richard Harrison (2015), although the fate of the church building is only specifically considered by Jack Simmons (1974). Any threat to the church building can provoke powerful reactions (Appleton 1996; Gold and Burgess 1982, p. 1) because it is perceived to be part of the cultural furniture of the nation (Percy 2006). According to Anthony Russell, the regular churchgoers tend to see themselves as a ‘self-identified community’ who belong because they participate (Russell 1986). Low numbers of people attending services he suggests have made services a more private act rather than a public occasion (p. 246). Hence, parish churches have occupied a place in the community for various reasons over time but the rising number of redundant churches during the second half of the twentieth century indicates that the parish church has not necessarily been valued in a modern society. Key questions are whether church redundancies were symptomatic of a fundamental shift in notions of community in the twentieth century and, if so, whether they reflected local attitudes to identity and a sense of belonging. Had a sense of community been lost, or was it no longer needed? Had attachment to a church vanished because it was no longer seen as necessary, as most commentators insist? The Anglican parish church in the landscape has also related to a sense of Englishness and the creation of a national identity, which links to the third theme of heritage. Heritage The Churches Conservation Trust (CCT) receives public funding to look after over 350 ‘outstanding historic churches’ in England, mostly in rural areas. These comprise Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II listed property, ranging from nationally important to regionally distinctive buildings in their respective community settings. Other national and local organisations are equally determined to rescue church buildings. Against this backdrop, the criteria used in the Church of England’s redundant churches policy, and by most other organisations, are that buildings must be of architectural and historical merit to be kept as part of the

14

D. BONNETTE

national heritage. If not, they are found an alternative use or demolished. It is, therefore, important to explore broad features of heritage and conservation that impacted on decisions on the future of Anglican churches. Heritage is another complex, contested and multi-layered concept, defined variously by different disciplines. Its definition has undergone many revisions, particularly in the twenty-first century. The most easily recognised meaning is that offered by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines heritage as ‘property that is or may be inherited: valued objects and qualities such as historic buildings and cultural traditions that have been passed down from previous generations’ (https://en.oxford dictionaries.com/definition/heritage). David Lowenthal (1991, p. 205) states that heritage is ‘a messy concept: ill-defined, heterogenous, changeable, chauvinist — and sometimes absurd’. Since the late 1970s, historians and sociologists have debated definitions of heritage and surrounding issues but there has been little focus on religious buildings (TerryChandler 1999; Graham 2002; Graham and Howard 2008; Lowenthal 2015). Many historians, such as Rosemary Sweet (2004), agree that the roots of heritage lie in the significant political, religious and economic changes of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. She suggests that, by the end of the eighteenth century, a framework for discussing the merits of preservation was being sketched out and foundations for the construction of a national heritage had been laid. The built heritage is categorised as special and important, having a relationship with the landscape and people, and set apart. It connects historically and politically with the conservation movement and is often regarded as at risk of being lost or in danger. The standard literature reinforces the concept of repackaging the past for present purposes, such as nationalistic aims (Raphael 1989; Lowenthal 1991, pp. 205–230; Lowenthal 1997, p. x; Mandler 2006; Whyte 2009; Whyte and Zimmer 2011). In the extant literature, the theme of giving value to material culture through aesthetic judgements gathered pace after World War II (Graham and Howard 2008). Nikolaus Pevsner, an extremely influential architectural historian, is emblematic of this cultural trend. He argued that taste meant ‘feeling disciplined by judgement’, which required a superior education, aesthetic qualities and the ability to bring a building to life on a page (Pevsner 1954, p. 227). His evaluative comments on buildings are much quoted and his determination to picture the buildings he loved best has been widely praised (Aitchison 2010). Darna Arnold (2002) describes

1

INTRODUCTION

15

him as mediating people’s experience of architecture by establishing protocols for visiting and conceptualising buildings. A genre of influential books exist that describe the architectural beauty of parish churches, according to personal architectural tastes. Basil Clarke, for instance, in his vivid and critical descriptions of eighteenth-and nineteenth-century churches, reviews specific styles and their historic merit (Clarke 1963).1 Of some built in the nineteenth century he reports that ‘there is difficulty in describing the churches; and that is, that there is almost nothing to say about them’ (p. 111). John Betjeman offers bluntly dismissive comments about buildings and Alex Clifton-Taylor writes beautiful descriptions of churches, not afraid to offer critical comments of those he does not like (Betjeman 1970; Clifton-Taylor 1974). More recently, Simon Jenkins has published England’s Thousand Best Churches (Jenkins 1999). Pevsner was a member of a small intellectual group with wide social networks who, according to Robert Hewison (1987) and Patrick Wright (2009), advanced the interests of a minority by deciding and controlling the value of heritage (see also Smith 2006). Webb (2018) provides a contrasting community-led perspective, and Brian Graham et al. (2000, p. 14) observe that ‘the will to conserve was the obsession of a passionate, educated and generally influential minority’, adding that ‘the social, educational and political characteristics of heritage producers have changed little since the nineteenth century’. Laurajane Smith (2006, p. 11) refers to this as ‘authorised heritage discourse’, while Steve Watson (2013, p. 117) observes that ‘an authorised version of spatial representation thus develops, one that will only admit selections based on culturally conditioned notions of attractiveness that are of long standing and related to mythologised concepts of English rurality’. Those who dominated the conservation movement are sometimes criticised for being elitist, particularly those with apparently narrow archaeological and architectural knowledge and understanding. Heritage legislation is hence based on the notion that decisions about what should be considered valuable or expendable in heritage terms are best left to ‘experts’ to determine. These ‘experts’, including qualified art historians, aristocrats and thinkers, created legislation, lists and policies, and disproportionately influenced church redundancy after World War II. The personal appreciation by the expert minority has, according to Martin Cherry, ‘helped determine what is considered excellent or worthwhile and what should be rejected as dross or insignificant’ (Cherry 2007, p. 11). Peter Larkham and Joe Nasr offer evidence of ‘top down’ processes driven by experts in their study

16

D. BONNETTE

of the twentieth-century protection of war-damaged churches in London (2012). The process was very low on any scale of wider involvement in decision-making (pp. 285–309). The heritage industry is criticised for promoting widespread middleclass nostalgia (Hewison 1987), although Raphael Samuel (1994) disagrees, believing that heritage serves to make the past more democratic, involving the lives of ordinary people. Fearful of losing the past, society sought to avoid modernising change by recalling it through nostalgic and romantic presentations (Lowenthal 1997; Graham 2002, p. 1006). The parish church has become a visual cliché of Englishness (Seymour and Watkins 1995; Mandler 1997). Norman Pounds talks of the illusionary appeal of the immemorial antiquity of the English village of traditional cottages and the tower of the local church dominating the landscape (2000). Lowenthal identifies the ‘possessive behaviour’ surrounding a building, ‘mainly sought and treasured as our own; we strive to keep it out of the clutches of others we suspect, often with good reason, of aiming to steal or spoil it’ (p. x. preface). Yi-Fu Tuan (1977) warns of the dangers of the passion for preservation, where the worship of heritage can find the parish church uneasily presented. Wright (2009) is concerned with increasing ‘museumification’ of the past. He describes how some apparently ancient traditions are more recent or invented and sees heritage as a revival of patriotism (Horne 1984; Hobsbawm and Ranger 2012). Similarly, Eric Hobsbawm (2012) explores how the past has to some extent been reinvented for the heritage industry and is focused on establishing national narratives. However, Simon Jenkins asserts that ‘a church is a museum and should be proud of the fact’ (Jenkins 1999, p. viii). These themes of history, value, nationhood and identity are linked to changing cultural and social conditions. Interest in the cultural significance of heritage has been growing. In addition to its intrinsic value, qualities can be attributed to an object, place or practice at a particular time, for particular reasons. David Throsby (2001, p. 533) argues that heritage assets are special because, in addition to their economic value, they embody cultural values which, in terms of their contribution to humanity, may well exceed their economic or financial value. This has created a vibrant literature on the tourist industry’s engagement with heritage, the motivations of those who visit tourist sites and how they perceive what they see (Clark 2001; Digance 2003; Staiff et al. 2013). Thus, English Heritage (2008) defined ‘heritage values’ as evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal, differing in nature and

1

INTRODUCTION

17

effect from utility, market value and instrumental benefits. Smith (2009) observes that heritage ‘is a process of negotiating historical and cultural meanings and values that occur around the decisions we make to preserve or not, certain physical places or objects and the way these are then managed’. More recently, conventional thinking about material culture has been challenged, and while the focus is on vulnerable heritage sites, this is relevant to debate about redundant churches. Caitlin DeSilvey (2012) questions the expectation of the indefinite long-term future of conservation and suggests that society should be prepared for a disappearance of landscapes and artefacts of cultural heritage. Elizabeth Chin (2016) talks of the profusion or ‘too muchness’ of heritage, making it impossible to conserve everything. She suggests a shift towards thresholds (p. 7). Building on her previous work, DeSilvey (2017) debates the notion of curated decay. She considers the possibility of balancing neglect with interventionist management and advances the view that sites ‘are not being saved because they are valued, but are valued because they are being saved’ (p. 178). Current studies of heritage focus on representativeness, because those in positions of power cannot always anticipate what diverse members of society may see as important (Harrison et al. 2020). Heritage is thus hard to define, with doubtful chronology and many interested parties who hold differing views. In the recent past, the future of historic buildings lay in the hands of an influential minority who romanticised and reimagined the past to support their value judgements. In conservation and heritage debates, church redundancy has proved to be a process of constant negotiation and re-negotiation by interested parties.

Sources and Methodology The Church of England has an extensive database of church closures compiled by the Church Commissioners which can be interrogated under successive pastoral measures from 1968. The database includes vital details about each church, including the build date, architect and reason for closure and associated dates. In this study, reasons for closure were extracted from paperwork submitted by dioceses to the Church Commissioners and had to be matched with individual church information in local records. Pre-1968 statistics were collated from a range of sources, including the minutes of the Bridges Commission, which lists churches identified for potential closure from 1950. Broader statistics

18

D. BONNETTE

were collected from data published annually by the Church of England, although the type of information collected differed each year. The Church Commissioner’s lead statistician was consulted for specific data that could not be found elsewhere. Financial statistics were harder to find. Dioceses have published their own data in year books and directories, which include local population, electoral roll numbers, financial payments to the dioceses and lists of incumbents. Amongst other statistical publications, Brierley Consultancy provides annual data on all Christian denominations, allowing comparative study. To complement the quantitative data, a broad range of qualitative analysis was undertaken. Church of England and diocesan reports were particularly useful and in Chapter 2 over 30 are drawn on to inform the legal and ecclesiastical context. Over 50 other reports, including those by English Heritage and the two local authorities of the case studies, also informed the study. Linguistic analysis was undertaken of many of the core debates to interrogate the tone adopted on church redundancy in newspapers, pamphlets and other media. These reveal the significance attached to dealing with redundant churches and the lack of flexibility in the process. Archives of newspaper cuttings from Lincolnshire, dating from the early twentieth century and held at the Central Library, were particularly useful. These, together with local Leicester and national newspapers, were used to summarise national and local debates and explore local conflicts. However, they must be used cautiously because they express particular views, whereas a more rounded picture emerges when combined with more sophisticated record linkage. National records researched include the Archbishop of Canterbury’s correspondence at Lambeth Palace Library and documentation on legislative debates held at The National Archives. To broaden the perspectives and add human voices to the findings, more detailed primary Anglican records have been examined. The Church Commissioners’ Closed Churches Division granted access to its records, and over 90 individual church files were explored. For these churches, local parish records also existed, enabling important linkage work. Altogether 120 records in the Leicestershire and Rutland Record Office and 109 in the Lincolnshire Archives were examined in detail. These included parochial church council (PCC) meeting and vestry minutes, service registers, electoral rolls, quinquennial inspection reports, redundancy papers, diocesan records relating to church redundancy and archives of local heritage organisations. In combination they provide a more

1

INTRODUCTION

19

local perspective on church redundancy and allow a bottom-up exploration of the debate. The personal reminiscences of those involved in church closures and those who supported or challenged the process for individual churches were particularly useful. Oral recollections, diaries, memoirs, letters, parish magazines and church histories were examined where available. During the research, oral histories were recorded from various people connected with church redundancy, including former clergy, churchwardens, the Cold Hanworth History Society, a former Chair of the Leicester Civic Society, new owners of former church buildings, Church of England policy officers and English Heritage. These are subjective assessments and raise issues of accuracy and reliability but are vital in enabling a deeper understanding. The remainder of this chapter describes the case study counties and the corresponding dioceses. It sets out the national and local data for church redundancy from 1968 to 2000, including the trends over time, official reasons cited for closure and the objections raised. Chapter 2 is an account of the history of ecclesiastical and secular policy surrounding Anglican church redundancy and the changing relationship with the state. It was a long, slow and involved development that resulted in extensive regulation and bureaucracy as the Church took more control over its own systems and processes. Tensions were evident between the Church’s mission to ‘cure all souls’ and accusations by the public and the heritage movement that, while it had a moral obligation to care for its buildings, it abandoned them. It will be demonstrated that the lack of trust between all parties slowed the procedures for redundancy in the two case study regions and created an adversarial tone within debate. Chapter 3 moves beyond policy to consider the Church of England as an institution and examines the accusations that it created the circumstances for its own decline, and thus loss of church buildings. Centralisation strategies that the Church of England employed to cope with rapid social change, shortage of clergy and financial challenges are explored for their effect on church buildings. The practical and pragmatic responses of the dioceses caused significant complications for committed churchgoers who were struggling to keep their buildings open, amid a changing context. The bureaucratic processes involved in protecting closed places of worship further complicated the image of decline and decay. Chapter 4 examines the implications of cultural and social shifts in the communities in which the redundant churches stood. Demographic forces, linked to modernisation and secular planning policy, were significant factors in the survival of parish churches.

20

D. BONNETTE

The changing social realities and the fluid sense of belonging prompted different reactions towards diocesan rationalisation of church property. Once made redundant, the alternative use of churches often provoked heated debate and emotional responses, demonstrating how the building was viewed as a symbol of English identity. Chapter 5 moves on to analyse the reality behind the rhetoric and seeks to understand what was happening in individual churches in terms of the conventional measurements of a religious life: believing, belonging and behaving. Churches remained open for a long time, despite thin support but what tipped them into redundancy? The chapter shows how the religious landscape was changing radically. Personal religiosity is tested through emotional objections to the sale of churchyards of redundant churches and attitudes towards non-Christian faiths purchasing unwanted buildings. Chapter 6 investigates the growing emphasis on the importance of the building itself, rather than as a spiritual place of worship, which created dilemmas for the Church of England. The heritage sector, through the prominence of an elite minority, influenced the policy agenda, and this chapter traces how each diocese collaborated, or attempted to collaborate with the agencies of the Church of England and the heritage movement. The national data are analysed to understand what it implies about the decisions to save certain churches over others. The final chapter draws together the findings in this book and possible implications for church redundancy in the twenty-first century. Since the churches that were demolished were not thought to have architectural merit and there are few records of them, photographs throughout the book act as a reminder of what was once part of a local landscape but is now lost.

The Case Study Counties and Dioceses According to Nicolaus Pevsner, ‘Leicestershire is not a county of extremes’ although it is a county of contrasts’. It has rolling hills dotted with farms and small villages connected by minor roads, former coal fields in the north of the county, large county towns and a vibrant city that has expanded quickly over time. In 1974, Leicester City’s County borough status was abolished, and it became an administrative district of Leicestershire (Fig. 1.1). Leicestershire’s population is concentrated in urban settlements and on town fringes, with a small percentage in villages, hamlets and isolated

1

INTRODUCTION

21

Fig. 1.1 Districts of Leicestershire (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

dwellings. The city is one of the most diverse in Europe, with more than 50% of the population from non-Christian faith groups, which has influenced the decline of Christian churches in ways that reflect broader changes in post-modern British society. Between 1951 and 1971 the population remained fairly stable in inner Leicester, at approximately 282,000, although it grew in the new suburban developments. The city then experienced significant changes in its population’s ethnic background. In the early 1950s, ex-servicemen

22

D. BONNETTE

from the Caribbean, for whom Christian evangelical churches were important, settled in the Highfields area. The 1970s saw spectacular growth in the number of South Asian people, whose close-knit groups sustained their community and cultural identity. Networks of kin and friendship links within the Asian community resulted in different groups establishing their own residential clusters. In 1971 the Asian community numbered approximately 20,190, rising to over 63,000 in 1983 and over 90,000 by 1993. Between 1980 and 1984 Bangladeshi families arrived, and from the early 1990s, Leicester saw an influx of refugees from around the world. In 1987, of 280,000 people in Leicester, 44,000 were Hindu, 10,000 Sikh and 10,000 Muslim. Leicester had the largest Sikh community in England and Wales and an expanding Muslim community. Nationally, by 1991, 28.5% of Leicester’s city population was Asian, compared with 5.5% of the UK population. Leicester became a very different city in the second half of the twentieth century. Lincolnshire has a very rural, generally flat arable landscape with large open fields and gently undulating countryside. In 2003, it was categorised as deeply rural, with over 80% of its population in rural settlements. There is a long coastline popular with tourists, fen and marshland a few feet above sea level, and the Wolds, an area of outstanding natural beauty, with rolling chalk hills and valleys. Its settlements include nucleated villages, isolated farmsteads, scattered hamlets, larger commuter towns and the cathedral city of Lincoln, which is ringed by several small market towns. Figure 1.2 shows the districts of Lincolnshire. Many lost medieval villages are situated in sparsely populated areas. Farming has been the predominant employer for generations. Lindsey, Holland and Kesteven were authorised as councils in their own right from 1888 until 1974, when they were unified into Lincolnshire, apart from the northern part of Lindsey which was incorporated into Humberside until 1996. The majority (51%) of redundancies occurred in the district of East Lindsey, which is larger than counties such as Surrey, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire. The coastal towns of Mablethorpe and Skegness are part of East Lindsey, and the district is expected to have a significant ageing population by 2028. Unlike Leicester, Lincolnshire was not affected by the settlement of any significant numbers of migrants. In Lincoln city between 1966 and 1971, the population decreased overall, which was considered to be due to out-migration to the surrounding villages caused by a lack of land for private house building in Lincoln. By 1981, Lincoln’s population had increased by 3.6%, far exceeding the trend

1

INTRODUCTION

23

Fig. 1.2 Districts of Lincolnshire (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

for England and Wales (0.8%). Substantial house building fuelled growth until the 1990s, when the population began to stagnate, and increases fell below the national average. After mainly Catholic Portugal joined the European Union in 1986, Portuguese migrants began to arrive to settle and work in rural Lincolnshire. In Lincolnshire, local authorities rather than local people have tended to resist changes to church use, particularly

24

D. BONNETTE

for residential redevelopment. This study of the Lincoln Diocese, therefore, facilitates comparison between local feelings and sensibilities, and county and district council planning frameworks. The dioceses of Lincoln and Leicester have had a long, connected history. The medieval diocese of Lincoln was the result of a union between the three ancient dioceses of Lindsey, Leicester and Dorchester. It was the largest in England, stretching from the Humber to the Thames, with nearly 2,000 clerical livings within its borders. There were seven archdeaconries, based largely on the county boundaries: Bedford, Buckingham, Leicester, Lincoln, Oxford, Huntington, Northampton and Rutland. The archdeaconaries were divided into rural deaneries which bore close relation with the equivalent civil divisions. Over time, Lincoln divested itself of many of its territories, losing Leicester to the newly formed Peterborough Diocese during the Reformation. By 1884 it had become the diocese for the county of Lincolnshire. In 1926, Leicester parted from Peterborough and became a diocese once again when the bishopric was restored. The Diocese of Leicester has two archdeaconaries, Leicester for the east of the county and Loughborough to serve the west. It covers over 830 square miles, serving a population of over one million people, with over 320 churches in 234 parishes. The bishops from 1940 to 1999 were: Guy Smith 1940–1953, Ronald Williams 1953–1979, Richard Rutt 1979–1991 and Tom Butler 1991–1999. At least 17 churches were made redundant in the diocese prior to 1968 (Appendix 1), and 24 between 1968 and 2000 (Appendix 2). Figure 1.3 shows the locations of redundant churches in the Leicester Diocese. There was a cluster of churches in the city centre and on the arterial roads, and the rest were broadly situated around the county borders. Fig. 1.4 shows the city churches made redundant. The Diocese of Lincoln covers over 2,600 square miles, with a population of over one million. In 2022, it had 625 church buildings in more than 600 parishes. It currently has three archdeaconaries after forming the new archdeaconry of Boston in 2013, alongside Lincoln, and Stow and Lindsey. The Lincoln Diocese has had considerable historic financial resources, and consequently levels of giving were low in comparison with neighbouring dioceses. It has led national policy on recruitment, training and deployment of ordinands since the early 1950s. The bishops from 1946 to 2002 were: Leslie Owen 1946–1947, Maurice Harland 1947–1956, Kenneth Riches 1956–1974, Simon Phipps 1974–1986 and

1

INTRODUCTION

25

Fig. 1.3 Redundant churches in the Leicester Diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Author)

Robert Hardy 1987–2002. Around 20 churches were closed for worship in the Lincoln Diocese in the early twentieth century before formal redundancy processes began in 1968 (Appendix 3). Since 1968, the diocese has made 73 parish churches and 11 chapels of ease redundant, with very few closures contested formally by parishioners or interested parties (Appendix 4).2 Figure 1.5 maps the redundant churches in the Lincoln Diocese.

Redundant Churches The perception in the media and the wider population is that the Church of England has overseen a high rate of closures, provoking controversy and significant reaction from the general public. However, the detail

26

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 1.4 Redundant churches in Leicester City, 1968–2000 (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

beneath these broad statistics provides a different perspective, that challenges the rhetoric. Data before 1968 are patchy because each diocese had its own systems. However, under new legislation from 1968, all churches were required to go through the same formal redundancy processes, regardless of how long they had been closed for worship. Thus, each diocese entered individual churches into the national system at different times, and various types of churches were included. The data divide the

1

INTRODUCTION

27

Fig. 1.5 Redundant churches in the Lincoln Diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Author)

church buildings into three main categories: parish churches, chapels of ease and others. Parish churches are the chief legal place of worship, often termed the mother church, and chapels of ease were originally built within the parish for the relief and ease of the inhabitants of remote hamlets.3 ‘Other’ generally refers to old burial chapels, mortuaries or unknown designations. The term ‘churches’ used in this book includes parish churches and chapels of ease and they are identified separately where appropriate.

28

D. BONNETTE

Between 1968 and 2000, 139 ‘old churches’, towers and ruins, which were unused or used infrequently and closed informally, were made redundant, over half of which were chapels of ease. These had been left behind when more modern replacements had been built nearby in the same parish, often in the nineteenth century. For example, the chapel of ease in Great Steeping All Saints in Lincolnshire had been unused since 1963 but was not formally recorded as redundant until 1973. St Mary-inArden in Market Harborough (chapel of ease) had no roof and had not been used since the 1930s but was not made formally redundant until 1974. When national statistics are quoted, little account is taken of these important variations. The centralised systems provide more accurate data on the number of redundant churches in each diocese after 1968. Between 1968 and 2000, after subtracting old church sites and those in the ‘other’ category, 1,567 churches were closed or partially closed across the country (Fig. 1.6) but they may have been unused for far longer. Of these buildings, 30% were recorded as chapels of ease.4 The number was particularly high in the early 1970s, with 112 made redundant in 1973 alone and a total of 864 by 1980. The rate then began to slow: by 1990 a further 445 had been closed, and by the year 2000, 258 more churches had been made redundant. Although these appear

National church and chapel redundancies 120 100

Number

80 60 40 20

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

0

Year

Fig. 1.6 The number of parish churches and chapels of ease made redundant nationally between 1968 and 2000 (Source Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007)

1

INTRODUCTION

29

to be large numbers, they are a small percentage of the total stock, and the Church was simultaneously opening new churches. Nevertheless, this raises a key question regarding the extent to which closures were seen as symbolically important. Figure 1.7 shows the number of redundant churches in each diocese between 1968 and 2000 and illustrates the variation across dioceses. The London Diocese had the highest number of redundancies, with Salisbury second and Lincoln third, with 80 churches and chapels of ease. Of the 1,567 redundant church buildings, 15.6% were Grade I listed, 22.6% Grade II*, 31.2% Grade II and 30% unlisted or listing unknown. According to the database, nine churches were delisted at the point of redundancy. The majority (60.6%) of redundant churches had been built (rebuilt or heavily restored) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, just over 4% in the eighteenth century, slightly over 1% in the sixteen and seventeenth centuries, and 32.4% in the fifteenth and preceding centuries. Geographically, the churches are grouped under broad headings in the data set. Around 20% were in cities, just over 35% in suburbs and towns and just over 44% in rural areas. The accumulated data give a broad picture nationally and allow for comparisons across the dioceses. Because of the subjective nature of the information and motivations for compiling it, caution must be exercised when considering the reasons for closure, which is why the specific circumstances for individual churches merit closer scrutiny. Broad observations about interrelated reasons for redundancy both nationally and for Lincoln and Leicester can be made using the data. Table 1.1 shows the reasons given for making churches redundant between 1968 and 2000, linked to locality, parish or buildings issues. Each church cited more than one reason for closure, although the data reveal some patterns. Nationally, the most frequently cited reason for redundancy (60.3%) was the small size of the parish and/or congregation. A much lower percentage of redundancies occurred in what were termed ‘over-churched areas’, indicating that too many churches in close proximity were not a particular problem across all dioceses. The next most frequently cited reasons were financial issues (48.7%) and the condition of the building (40.5%). Interestingly, little has changed since these continued to be the top three reasons for redundancy in 2019. In over a quarter of all redundancies, both financial issues and parish/congregation size were cited as reasons. Very low numbers of worshippers could not

30

D. BONNETTE

Diocese

Number of redundancies in each diocese, 1968-2000 Bath & Wells Birmingham Blackburn Bradford Bristol Canterbury Carlisle Chelmsford Chester Chichester Coventry Derby Durham Ely Exeter Gloucester Guildford Hereford Leicester Lichfield Lincoln Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Norwich Oxford Pererborough Portsmouth Ripon & Leeds Rochester Salisbury Sheffield Southwark Southwell & Notts St Albans St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Truro Wakefield Winchester Worcester York 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number

Fig. 1.7 The number of parish churches and chapels of ease made redundant in each diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007)

1

INTRODUCTION

31

Table 1.1 Reasons cited for church redundancy, 1968–2000 Reason Locality related Diversity of population Planning issues Population shift away from area Remote building Parish/congregational factors Financial issues Size of parish/congregation too small for church Manpower issues Overchurched area Part of strategic review Building related Building too large Already a ruin Unsuitable building Condition of building

National (%)

Leicester (%)

Lincoln (%)

1.5 8.1 20.3 18.6

16.7 4.2 37.5 20.8

0.0 1.2 20.7 46.3

48.7 60.3

41.7 75.0

31.7 76.8

3.4 15.6 6.5

4.2 29.2 8.3

7.3 12.2 1.2

15.7 3.5 14.3 40.5

25.0 4.2 12.5 33.3

0.0 1.2 3.7 50.0

Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007

provide the funding required to keep churches open, especially if they were in poor condition. Neither Leicester nor Lincoln Diocese followed the national picture, with striking differences in some indicators (Fig. 1.8). In the Leicester Diocese over three quarters of the churches made redundant had issues with the size of the parish, which affected both urban and rural churches. Financial issues were not as great as those nationally and the higher percentage of redundancies due to population shift related mainly to urban churches in areas that had undergone significant modernisation. These were large buildings in what had become over-churched areas. For instance, St George seated 800, St John 900 and St Matthew 1,250. Peculiar to the Leicester Diocese was the much higher proportion (16.5%) of churches recording diversity of population as a reason, which related to the rapid rise of non-Christian communities in the city (see Chapter 5). For the Lincoln Diocese, the percentage of churches naming the small size of parishes/congregations as a reason for redundancy (76.8%) was significantly higher than nationally. Most were rural churches, but seven

32

D. BONNETTE

out of twelve urban churches (where information was provided) also indicated that this was a reason. The condition of the church was specified by half of the churches, many more than nationally. Unsurprisingly, remoteness was a key indicator (46.3%) and much higher than national figures. However, in the Lincoln Diocese, population shift away from the area was broadly similar to national percentages. Only two urban churches, Great Grimsby St Luke and Scunthorpe St John, cited this as a reason for closure. In general, the data show that many Lincolnshire churches were in areas with small populations and too few people to either attend or finance their maintenance. Reasons for closure are revisited in the next chapters, linking them to the themes of secularisation, community and belonging. A further point of interest is the number and type of objections raised against closure for worship. Opportunity was provided for anyone to make formal representations for or against a church’s closure, or at a later date, its proposed future. The Church Commissioners were required to publish details in local newspapers and to record objections received.

Reasons for church closure

90 80

Percentage

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Leicester %

Lincoln %

National %

Fig. 1.8 National and regional reasons cited for redundancy, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007)

1

INTRODUCTION

33

Nationally, the number of formal responses to church closure for worship was very low between 1968 and 2000, with only 14% recorded as contested (Fig. 1.9). Newspaper insertions were usually small, located in the notice sections and hard to spot, which may have been a contributory factor unless the proposed redundancy was already known. London, Chelmsford and Chichester received the highest number of objections, and there were none in the dioceses of Bradford and Newcastle. There were objections to only six out of 80 cases in Lincoln, while Leicester had eight objections to 24 closures. A slightly different picture emerges if the percentage of objections in relation to the number of churches made redundant in each diocese is calculated. Hence, Chichester had the highest percentage of objections (36.8%) while Leicester had the second highest, with 33.3%, mostly for its city churches. Some churches in Leicester City were supported through the objection process by a former worshipper of St Leonard’s church. He gained a local reputation for fighting redundancy decisions and ultimately made a difference to Leicester’s statistics for objection to closure. Once made redundant, churches had a range of alternative uses or were demolished (more in Chapters 5 and 6). The data show that between 1968 and 2000, overall, the dioceses found alternative uses for over half (55%) of the churches made redundant, 20% were preserved for the benefit of the nation, and 22% were demolished. The remaining 3% were partially preserved, partially demolished or were former sites of churches. Across the dioceses, there were significant differences in the percentages in each category. The Lincoln Diocese found alternative uses for 40% of its redundant churches, preserved 27.5%, and demolished 20%. The Leicester Diocese found alternative uses for over 33% of its redundant churches, preserved over 37%, demolished 25% and one was already a ruin. The next chapter begins by examining the creation of the formal redundancy process and the contentious debate this caused.

34

D. BONNETTE

Diocese

Contested closures Bath & Wells Birmingham Blackburn Bradford Bristol Canterbury Carlisle Chelmsford Chester Chichester Coventry Derby Durham Ely Exeter Gloucester Guildford Hereford Leicester Lichfield Lincoln Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Norwich Oxford Pererborough Portsmouth Ripon & Leeds Rochester Salisbury Sheffield Southwark Southwell & Notts St Albans St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Truro Wakefield Winchester Worcester York 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Number

Fig. 1.9 The number of contested redundancies in each diocese, 1968–2000 (Source Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical database, 2007)

1

INTRODUCTION

35

Notes 1. Clarke was an influential member of the Council for the Care of Churches, the body that made decisions about the future of redundant churches. 2. Four churches included in the overall number were not closed under the pastoral measure but were closed after 1968. 3. Chapels of ease were originally for prayer and preaching with all sacraments and burials taking place at the mother church. Those chapels within townships or districts may have been made independent of the parish church if sufficient endowment was secured. 4. 3% were recorded as ‘other’.

References Addleshaw, G.W.O. 1953. The Beginnings of the Parochial System. London: St Anthony’s Press. Aitchison, M., ed. 2010. Pevsner’s Townscape: Visual Planning and the Picturesque. Los Angeles, CA: Getty. Ambler, R.W. 2000. Churches, Chapels and the Parish Communities of Lincolnshire 1660–1900. History of Lincolnshire Committee: Lincoln. Appleton, J. 1996. The Experience of Landscape. Chichester: Wiley. Archbishop of York. 2020. A Vision for the Church of England in the 2020s: ‘Christ Centred and Jesus Shaped. Simpler, Humbler, Bolder’. London: Church House. Arnold, D. 2002. Reading Architectural History. London: Routledge. Best, G. 1979. Mid-Victorian Britain 1851–75. London: Fontana. Betjeman, J. 1970. Ghastly Good Taste or, a Depressing Story of the Rise and Fall of English Architecture. London: Blond. Bott, E. 1957. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock. Brace, C. 1999. Looking back: The Cotswolds and English national identity, c. 1890–1950. Journal of Historical Geography 25: 502–516. Brewitt-Taylor, S. 2013. The invention of a ‘secular society’? Christianity and the sudden appearance of secularization discourses in the British national media, 1961–4. Twentieth Century British History 24: 327–350. Brewitt-Taylor, S. 2018. Christian Radicalism in the Church of England and the Invention of the British Sixties 1957–1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, C.G. 2001. The Death of Christian Britain. London: Taylor & Francis. Brown, C.G. 2006. Religion and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain. Harlow: Pearson. Brown, C.G. 2009. The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800–2000. London: Routledge. Brown, C.G. 2019. The Battle for Christian Britain: Sex, Humanists and Secularisation, 1945–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36

D. BONNETTE

Brown, A., and L. Woodhead. 2016. That Was the Church That Was: How the Church of England Lost the English People. London: Bloomsbury. Bruce, S. 2013. Secularisation and church growth in the United Kingdom. Journal of Religion in Europe 6: 273–296. Bruce. S. 2016. Appendix two: Fifty years on. In Religion in Secular Society, ed. S. Bruce, 241–258. Oxford: OUP. Bruce, S., and T. Glendinning. 2010. When was secularization? Dating the decline of the British churches and locating its cause. The British Journal of Sociology 61: 107–125. Bryman, A. 1989. The value of re-studies in sociology: The case of clergy and ministers, 1971–1985. Sociology 23: 31–53. Burchard, J. 2012. Historicizing counterurbanisation: In-migration and reconstruction of rural space in Berkshire, 1901–51. Journal of Historical Geography 38: 155–166. Burns, R.A. 1999. The Diocesan Revival in the Church of England: c.1800–1870. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Calhoun, C.J. 1980. Community: Towards a variable conceptualization for comparative research. Social History 5: 105–129. Castles, S., and A. Davidson. 2000. Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Chadwick, O. 1971. The Victorian Church: Part 1. Edinburgh: A & C Black. Chandler, A. 2006. The Church of England in the Twentieth Century: The Church Commissioners and the Politics of Reform 1948–1998. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Chaves, M. 1994. Secularisation as declining religious authority. Social Forces 72: 749–774. Cherry, M. 2007. Architectural history and conservation. In Understanding Historic Building Conservation, ed. M. Forsyth. Oxford: Blackwell. Chin, E. 2016. My Life with Things: The Consumer Diaries. London: Duke University Press. Church of England. 2020. Statistics for Mission 2019. London: Church House. Clark, K. 2001. Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and Their Landscapes for Conservation. London: RCHM. Clarke, B.F.L. 1963. The Building of the Eighteenth Century Church. London: SPCK. Clements, B. 2015. Religion and Public Opinion in Britain: Continuity and Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Clifton-Taylor, A. 1974. English Parish Churches as Works of Art. London: Batsford. Cohen, A.P., ed. 1982. Belonging: Identity and Social Organisation in British Rural Cultures. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Cohen, A.P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock.

1

INTRODUCTION

37

Cooper, T. 2004. How Do We Keep Our Parish Churches? London: The Ecclesiological Society. Cox, J. 1982. The English Churches in a Secular Society: Lambeth, 1870–1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cox, J. 2003. Master narratives of long term religious change. In The Decline of Christendom in Western Europe: 1750–2000, ed. H. McLeod and W. Ustorf, 201–217. Cambridge: CUP. Crockett, A., and D. Voas. 2006. Generations of decline: Religious change in 20th-century Britain. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45: 567–584. Currie, R., A. Gilbert, and L. Horsley. 1977. Churches and Churchgoers: Patterns of Church Growth in the British Isles Since 1700. Oxford: Clarendon. Davie, G. 2000. Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davie, G. 2006. Religion in Europe in the 21st century: The factors to take into account. European Journal of Sociology 47: 271–296. Davie, G. 2015. Religion in Britain: A Persistent Paradox. Chichester: WileyBlackwell. Davies, D., C. Watkins, and M. Winter. 1991. Church and Religion in Rural England. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Deacon, D., and M. Donald. 2004. In search of community history. Family and Community History 7: 13–18. DeSilvey, C. 2012. Making sense of transience: An anticipatory history. Cultural Geographies 19: 31–54. DeSilvey, C. 2017. Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Digance, J. 2003. Pilgrimage at contested sites. Annals of Tourism Research 30: 143–159. English Heritage. 2008. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance. London: English Heritage. Field, C.D. 2014. Another window on British secularization: Public attitudes to church and clergy since the 1960s. Contemporary British History 28: 1–29. Field, C.D. 2015. Britain’s Last Religious Revival? Quantifying Belonging, Behaving and Believing in the Long 1950s. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Field, C.D. 2017. Secularization in the Long 1960s: Numerating Religion in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, C.D. 2019. Periodizing Secularization: Religious Allegiance and Attendance in Britain, 1880–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, C.D. 2022. Counting Religion in Britain, 1970–2020: Secularization in Statistical Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. French, C. 2011. The good life in Victorian and Edwardian Surbiton: Creating a suburban community before 1914. Family and Community History 14: 105– 120.

38

D. BONNETTE

Gilbert, A.D. 1976. Religion and Society in Industrial England: Church, Chapel and Social Change 1740–1914. London: Longman. Gill, R. 2003. The Empty Church Revisited. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point. London: Little Brown. Gold, J.R., and J. Burgess. eds. 1982. Valued Environments. London: Routledge. Graham, B. 2002. Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban Studies 39: 1003–1017. Graham, B., and P. Howard, eds. 2008. The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity. Aldershot: Routledge. Graham, B., G.J. Ashworth, and J.E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. Abingdon: Arnold. Green, S.J.D. 1996. Religion in the Age of Decline: Organisation and Experience in Industrial Yorkshire, 1870–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, S.J.D. 2012. The Passing of Protestant England: Secularisation and Social Change, c.1920–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunn, S. 2013. People and the car: The expansion of automobility in urban Britain, c.1955–70. Social History 38: 220–237. Harrison, R.S. 2015. Urban planning and the motor car, 1955–1977: Responses to the growth of private motoring in Leicester and Milton Keynes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Leicester University. Harrison, R., C. DeSilvey, C. Holtorf, S. Macdonald, N. Bartolini, E. Breithoff, H. Fredheim, A. Lyons, S. May, J. Morgan, and S. Penrose. 2020. Heritage Futures: Comparative Approaches to Natural and Cultural Heritage Practices. London: UCL Press. Hewison, R. 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen. Hillery, G.A. 1955. Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology 20: 111–123. Hobsbawm, E. 2012. Introduction: Inventing traditions. In The Invention of Tradition, ed. E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobsbawm, E., and T. Ranger, eds. 2012. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horne, D. 1984. The Great Museum: The Re-presentation of History. London: Pluto. Inglis, K.S. 1963. Churches and the Working Class in Victorian England: 1833– 1889. London: Routledge. Jackson, B. 2005. The Road to Growth: Towards a Thriving Church. London: Church House. Jenkins, S. 1999. England’s Thousand Best Churches. London: Allen Lane. Jones, A. 2000. A Thousand Years of the English Parish: Medieval Patterns and Modern Interpretations. London: Cassell.

1

INTRODUCTION

39

Larkham, P.J., and J.L. Nasr. 2012. Decision making under duress: The treatment of churches in the City of London during and after World War II. Urban History 39: 285–309. Lee, D., and H. Newby. 1983. The Problem of Sociology. London: Routledge. Lewis, G.J. 2000. Changing places in a rural world: The population turnaround in perspective. Geography 85: 157–165. Lowenthal, D. 1991. British national identity and the English landscape. Rural History 2: 205–230. Lowenthal, D. 1997. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, D. 2015. The Past Is a Foreign Country Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macfarlane, A. 1977. History, anthropology and the study of communities. Social History 2: 631–652. Macfarlane, A. 1987. The Culture of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Mandler, P. 1997. Against ‘Englishness’: English culture and the limits to rural nostalgia, 1850–1940. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 7: 155–175. Mandler, P. 2006. What is ‘national identity’? Definitions and applications in modern British historiography. Modern Intellectual History 3: 271–297. McLaughlin, N. 2002. Divided communities? Religious identity in Carfin and Newar Thill, Lanarkshire: 1922–1939. Family and Community History 5: 59– 71. McLeod, D.H. 1974. Class and Religion in the Late Victorian City. London: Croom Helm. McLeod, D.H. 1989. New perspectives on Victorian class religion: The oral evidence. Oral History Journal 14: 31–43. McLeod, D.H. 2000. Secularisation in Western Europe, 1948–1914. London: Palgrave. Mills, D. 2004. Defining community: A critical review of ‘community.’ Family & Community History 7: 5–12. Monckton, L. 2013. ‘An age of destruction’? Anglican Church closure past and present. Ecclesiology Today 47 (48): 121–132. Morris, J. 2003. The strange death of Christian Britain: Another look at the secularization debate. The Historical Journal 46: 963–976. Morris, J. 2012. Secularisation and religious experience: Arguments in the historiography of modern British religion. The Historical Journal 55: 195–219. Ottewill, R., and I. Slocombe. 2009. Parish councils in England and Wales. The Local Historian 39 (1): 24–37. Percy, M. 2006. Clergy: The Origin of Species. London: Continuum. Percy, M. 2013. Anglicanism: Confidence, Commitment and Communion. London: Routledge. Pevsner, N. 1954. C20 picturesque. Architectural Review, April: 226–229.

40

D. BONNETTE

Poulton, J. 1985. Fresh Air: A Vision for the Future of Rural Churches. Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering. Pounds, N.J.G. 2000. A History of the English Parish: The Culture of Religion from Augustine to Victoria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, E. 1970. The New Villagers. London: Routledge. Raphael, S., ed. 1989. Patriotism: The Making and Understanding of British National Identity. London: Routledge. Roberts, C. 2003. Is the rural church different? A comparison of historical membership statistics between an urban and a rural diocese in the Church of England. Rural Theology 1: 25–39. Robinson, J.A.T. 1963. Honest to God. London: SCM. Royle, E. 2009. The parish community through the vicarage window: Nineteenth-century clergy visitation returns. Family & Community History 12: 6–21. Russell, A. 1986. The Country Parish. London: SPCK. Samuel, R. 1994. Theatres of Memory, Vol. 1: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture. London: Verso. Saxby, S. 2020. The rise and fall of the ‘redundant church’: Urban church closure and the Church of England from 1833 to 2011. Unpublished doctoral thesis, King’s College, London. Seymour, S., and C. Watkins. 1995. Church, landscape and community: Rural life and the Church of England. Landscape Research 20: 30–44. Shaw, K., and F. Robinson. 1998. Learning from experience? Reflections on two decades of British urban policy. The Town Planning Review 69: 49–63. Shepard, A., and P. Withington, eds. 2000. Communities in Early Modern England: Networks, Place, Rhetoric. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Short, B., ed. 1992. The English Rural Community: Image and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simmons, J. 1974. Leicester Past and Present, Volume 2: Modern City: 1860–1974. London: Methuen. Smith, M.A. 1994. Religion in an Industrial Society: Oldham and Saddleworth, 1740–1865. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge. Smith, L. 2009. Class, heritage and the negotiation of place. Paper presented to the Missing Out on Heritage: Socio-Economic Status and Heritage Participation conference, English Heritage, London. Snell, K.D.M. 2009. Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700–1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snell, K.D.M. 2016. Spirits of Community: English Senses of Belonging and Loss, 1750–2000. London: Bloomsbury. Staiff, R., R. Bushell, and S. Watson, eds. 2013. Heritage and Tourism: Place, Encounter, Engagement. Abingdon: Routledge.

1

INTRODUCTION

41

Strong, R. 2008. A Little History of the English Country Church. London: Vintage. Sweet, R. 2004. Antiquaries: The Discovery of the Past in Eighteenth Century Britain. London: Hambledon. Tate, W.E. 1969. The Parish Chest: A Study of the Records of Parochial Administration in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terry-Chandler, F. 1999. Heritage and history: A special relationship? Midland History 24: 188–193. The Guardian. 2021a. Opinion. The Guardian, 26 October. The Guardian. 2021b. Letter from the Very Reverend Richard Giles. The Guardian, 29 October. Thompson, K.A. 1970. Bureaucracy and Church Reform: The Organisational Response of the Church of England to Social Change, 1800–1965. Oxford: Clarendon. Throsby, C.D. 2001. Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuan, Y.F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press. Voas, D. 2017. Intentionality, numerical growth and the rural church. Rural Theology 15: 2–11. Voas, D., and A. Crockett. 2005. Religion in Britain: Neither believing nor belonging. Sociology 39: 11–28. Waters, M. 2001. Globalization. London: Routledge. Watson, S. 2013. Country matters: The rural-historic as an authorised heritage discourse in England. In Heritage and Tourism: Place, Encounter, Engagement, ed. R. Staiff, R. Bushell, and S. Watson, 103–126. Abingdon: Routledge. Webb, M.S. 2018. Local responses to the protection of medieval buildings and archaeology in British post-war town reconstruction: Southampton and Coventry. Urban History 45: 635–659. Webster, P. 2020. Parliament and the law of the Church of England, 1945–74. In The Church of England and British Politics Since 1900, ed. T. Rodger, P.A. Williamson and M. Grimley, chapter 10. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Whyte, W. 2009. The Englishness of English architecture: Modernism and the making of a national international style, 1927–1957. Journal of British Studies 48: 441–465. Whyte, W. 2017. Unlocking the Church: The Lost Secrets of Victorian Sacred Space. Oxford: OUP. Whyte, W., and O. Zimmer, eds. 2011. Nationalism and the Reshaping of Urban Communities in Europe, 1848–1914. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wickham, E.R. 1957. Church and People in an Industrial City. London: Lutterworth.

42

D. BONNETTE

Williams, S.C. 1999. Religious Belief and Popular Culture in Southwark c.1880– 1939. Oxford: Clarendon. Willmott, P. 1989. Community Initiatives: Patterns and Prospects. London: Policy Studies Institute. Wilson, B. 1966. Religion in Secular Society. London: Watts. Woodhead, L. 2016. Neither religious nor secular: The British situation and its implications for religion–state relations. In Contesting Secularism: Comparative Perspectives, ed. A. Berg-Sorensen, 137–161. Abingdon: Routledge. Wright, P. 2009. On Living in an Old Country: The National Past in Contemporary Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wrightson, K. 2011. Communities: Key institutions and relationships. YaleCourses, 9 March. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-qdApVXVS0&ab_ channel=YaleCourses (accessed 9 March 2015).

CHAPTER 2

The Church, the State and National Heritage: Contentious Debate

The public have long been dismayed at the long succession of fine churches forced to appeal for funds to stave off disaster, and many have begun to look for some more general policy for church upkeep, in which perhaps the community itself might take a hand, if called upon. (The Times 1950a) It is to be regretted that the economic circumstances of the times have prevented the authorities of the Church from making much progress towards a long-term solution of this problem. In so far as it is a national problem, affecting as it does a large and important section of the nation’s heritage of beautiful things, the trustees would like to see the matter more widely ventilated and the distressing facts made known to the public at large on behalf of the whole Church. (The Times 1950b)

In the early 1950s, concerned organisations, like the Pilgrim Trust above, witnessing the ‘distressing’ decline and redundancy of historic Anglican churches across England were looking for an overarching strategic policy.1 Fundamental spiritual and heritage issues were difficult to resolve and the call for a proper church redundancy process was long and sustained. It is important to acknowledge this early legislative landscape in order to appreciate the complexity of debate and understand why the process remains convoluted and contentious in the twenty-first century. Thus,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_2

43

44

D. BONNETTE

this chapter explores the separate and often conflicting secular and ecclesiastical perspectives in the church redundancy debate. It highlights the differences of opinion, lack of trust and divisions between and within various bodies attempting to collaborate over many decades. What comes through clearly is acceptance by the Church and secular bodies that churches would inevitably become redundant with little real action to keep them open. Establishing the process for church redundancy was hugely bureaucratic, including hundreds of superficial changes to legislation, committees, debates, inquiries, consultations and reports. From 1943 onwards there was also an intentional shift of power away from local clergy and parishes towards the bishops and strengthening of the autonomy of the established Church away from state intervention, all of which created unresolved tensions.

Early Legislation At the beginning of the twentieth century, those interested in building conservation exhibited a considerable lack of trust in Church of England processes. At issue was fundamental disagreement with the Church of England’s view that church buildings were not historic monuments. This was at a time when church buildings were becoming regarded publicly as heirlooms or historical texts. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) was already working to prevent well-meaning architects from leading over-zealous church restoration, and heritage considerations were gradually replacing spiritual ones. Established by textile designer and social activist, William Morris in 1877, the SPAB’s members included many eminent and influential men. Like other conservation proponents, it was specifically concerned about the Church having its own processes for dealing with repairs and changes to church buildings. Having witnessed many poor church restorations, it lobbied to bring the buildings into a secular process. Meanwhile, the Church relied on its own faculty system, whereby parishioners, through application to the consistory courts, could be granted permission by the diocesan chancellor to repair or change their church. Such was the level of concern about the faculty system that a joint parliamentary committee was appointed to consider how to include church buildings within the planned changes to the Ancient Monuments Act (UK Government 1900). However, the committee was faced with an uncompromisingly hostile response from the Church. Lewis Dibdin,

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

45

Dean of Arches, did not accept the need for government or municipal interference in ecclesiastical administration and could not recall a single case of ‘what could be called an architectural outrage having been committed’ (The Times 1912a).2 He reminded the committee that the primary purpose of a church building was public worship, and that it could not be regarded entirely from the point of view of an ancient monument. To substitute the control of ecclesiastical law with that of the Office of Works would be ‘absolutely destructive and anarchic’. Unsurprisingly, this did not chime well with the secular authorities or the SPAB, which complained about ‘vandalism’ to medieval Christchurch in Hampshire, accepted by the bishop under faculty (The Times 1912b). The Times also disclosed that bishops were equally critical of the faculty system owing to their own lack of involvement when parishioners wanted to change or repair church buildings. This was perceived to be more of a transaction between the parish and the chancellor than an inclusive process (The Times 1912c). Despite the internal concerns, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, wishing to quell the call for secular intervention, persuaded parliament that the Church’s internal faculty system was sufficient to exert control over church buildings. He claimed that ‘No change for the better would come about by transferring control to public authorities or parliament’ and pledged that the Church of England would take proper care of its buildings using the faculty jurisdiction.3 Thus, the secular law was consolidated and amended in 1913 (UK Government 1913). Davidson’s decision would have far-reaching consequences for the protection of churches, especially redundant buildings. It was an example of early resistance to conservation legislation and set the tone for the adversarial approach that can be traced into the next century. It also marked the beginning of the loosening of state control over the Church of England. The Ancient Monuments Act 1913 introduced a coercive control element and justified state intervention over monuments in private ownership that were causing national concern.4 Preservation orders were instituted, and monuments deemed to be of national importance were scheduled, which excluded any ‘ecclesiastical building which is for the time being used for ecclesiastical purposes’ (Archbishops’ Commission 1960, p. 16). Concern about ill-advised improvements and overly radical restoration of church buildings continued unabated, which prompted the archbishops to set up an inquiry by the Ancient Monuments (Churches) Committee, presided over by Dibdin. The SPAB provided evidence to the

46

D. BONNETTE

committee which discredited the faculty system, listing 40 churches where it considered that destructive work had been carried out since 1896. The committee discovered that the accusations were embarrassingly true, as 21 out of the 40 churches had had no faculty agreed for the work carried out. Where a faculty had been used, few had obtained skilled archaeological or artistic advice on restoration or improvement. Thus Dibdin’s 1914 report made several recommendations, including the creation of a diocesan advisory committee (DAC) in each diocese to act in a purely advisory capacity for proposed changes and repairs to church buildings. Meanwhile, the Church continued to seek greater opportunity to control its own internal affairs. It introduced a new Church of England Assembly Act (UK Government 1919), called the Enabling Act and began to revise its legislative process. Only 33 of 217 Church bills introduced in parliament between 1880 and 1913 had been successful. The new assembly would have the power to prepare ‘measures’ which had the force and effect of acts of parliament on matters concerning the Church of England (House of Commons Information Office 2010). The Archbishop of Canterbury pressed parliament for a speedy acceptance of the Act, since a similar bill on patronage and tenure of benefices had taken 12 years. The Act gave both the House of Commons and the House of Lords power to accept or reject such measures as were presented to them, but crucially they could not amend them. Figure 2.1 shows the stages through which a Church measure must pass for approval by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Measures were brought to parliament and passed without much debate, ‘due not least to the habit of those in charge of parliamentary scheduling of placing these debates late at night, at the very end of the day’s business’ (Webster 2020). Since parliament was, in effect, presented with nothing concrete to decide, debates were often circuitous and vague, and wandered far from the specific matters at hand (Webster 2020). By 1921, a critical mass of DACs in the dioceses needed a central organising body: hence, the Central Committee for the Protection of English Churches (later the Central Council for the Care of Churches—CCCC) was established, which offered modest grants to cover expenses for giving advice to the dioceses.

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

47

Fig. 2.1 Stages through which a Church Measure must pass for approval by the House of Commons and the House of Lords

Strengthening the Power of the Church The Church then began to improve its own processes while strengthening the power of the bishops in the dioceses. The Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1921 was passed, which replaced the long-standing legal authority of the incumbent, the churchwardens and the vestry. At that time, a fifth of all English parishes had populations of under 300, and following a consultation exercise, the Union of Benefices Measure 1923 was introduced to formalise and modernise the procedure for uniting very small benefices (a benefice is a permanent Church appointment, typically that of a rector or vicar, for which property and income are provided in respect of pastoral duties). This measure improved the bureaucratic machinery and allowed reviews of resources and manpower. Over a fiveyear period, 452 enquiries were carried out under this administrative process, only 80 of which were declined (Hansard 1924). Importantly, the measure made provision for disused churches, which could be demolished in whole, or part and the sites sold or appropriated in other ways

48

D. BONNETTE

suited to the Church of England’s educational and charitable purposes. The designated sites remained in diocesan ownership, and the legal effects of consecration were not removed. Secular use of these sites was not permitted. In 1924, the Ancient Monuments Society (AMS) was established by architect John Swarbrick. Not until 1936 was a commission appointed to consider the recommendations of the 1914 Dibdin report, and another two years before the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1938 (FJM) was passed into ecclesiastical law. The FJM sought to strengthen the powers and responsibilities of archdeacons, who were effectively the ‘the eyes of the bishop’, and weaken those of incumbents, patrons and parishioners (Ecclesiastical Committee 1938, S.13). Archdeacons could formally become more involved in the faculty process and were required to consult the DAC, which now had statutory recognition, but no decision-making powers. Church redecoration and repairs not involving any substantial structural alteration had to be certified by the archdeacon, and a formal faculty had to be sought only for substantial alterations. The legal setting of the DAC system highlighted the independence of each diocese, making central coordination from London more difficult. In 1937 the Georgian Group was created to campaign for the preservation of eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century historic buildings and planned landscapes. Sir John Betjeman, architectural historian Sir John Summerson, and architectural writers James Lees-Milne and Christopher Hussey were amongst its most prominent early active members. A further strengthening of diocesan control came through the New Parishes Measure 1943, which ensured that the bishop was the patron of any new parish and could appoint the incumbent.5 By 1944, World War II bombing had caused significant damage to Church property across the country, and this, in addition to a post-war shortage of clergy and a fall in benefice incomes, meant that there were too many local churches to repair or rebuild with available financial resources. Therefore, the time-limited Church of England Reorganisation Areas Measure 1944 was applied to designated war-damaged areas of England. Approximately, 160 churches were demolished under this measure, using a new concept of ‘listed buildings’ status to determine which properties should be protected from demolition (Archbishops’ Commission 1960, p. 21). Lists were prepared by members of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the SPAB. Grade I and Grade II listed buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest were prioritised and designated for

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

49

repair where possible. There was a heavy weighting towards pre-Victorian architecture, and suggestions to maintain the ruins of city churches as acts of remembrance divided public opinion. Heritage organisations were very uneasy about the large number of demolitions, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 marked a further attempt to protect important buildings, preventing hasty demolition. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government began to compile lists of all buildings of architectural and historical interest across the country, although this did not prevent some already marked for closure from being demolished, as highlighted by conservation societies such as the SPAB and the Georgian Group. In 1948, the Church Commissioners was established, tasked with promoting more efficient Church administration by managing its historic assets to support its ministry (Church of England 1947).6 The Reorganisation Areas Measure had focused only on war-damaged areas, and the Church Commissioners gradually realised that something similar would be needed for areas where populations were shifting to new suburbs and estates, or which had not suffered from enemy action. The problems of too few clergy and financial challenges also required urgent attention, and the process for uniting benefices to aid dioceses was criticised for being too slow. The Pastoral Reorganisation Measure of 1949 thus simplified procedures to make better provision for the ‘cure of souls’ by accelerating unions of benefices and the holding of parishes in plurality. This measure mandated the creation of a diocesan pastoral committee to take strategic responsibility for diocesan reorganisation and make the best use of local resources, although concern was expressed that bishops would have too much power within the changed parochial system. The measure did not reassure those concerned about protecting churches. The Pilgrim Trust called attention to the urgent question of repair and upkeep of parish churches, as it had felt obliged to refuse funding for individual churches except for temporary repairs. Pressured by these criticisms, the Church Assembly set up a dedicated committee to recommend action on unwanted historic churches (Church Assembly 1949). This was chaired by the bishop of Norwich, who was particularly interested in dealing with empty churches because there were potentially so many in his diocese. Unsurprisingly, the committee reported that there was no clear sense of direction on the urgent problem of closures. Nationally, apart from ruins, 400 churches were seldom or never used, and of these, 300 were of historic or architectural interest (The Daily Telegraph 1949). Some £4 million was needed to put the ecclesiastical

50

D. BONNETTE

built heritage in order. The committee recommended that guardianship of churches at risk should be passed to the Ministry of Works and Planning, handing over financial and operational responsibility from the Church to the state (Church Assembly 1949).7 DACs would be asked to advise, and redundant churches would be vested in a diocesan board of finance. Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Bryan O’Neil, welcomed the recommendations, saying: One of the distinguishing characteristics of the English scene in town and country is the prevalence of old dignified churches … it is not an exaggeration to say that they form the main part of the English heritage of architecture and art. (TNA 1950)

Dioceses were asked to submit lists of churches to offer to the Ministry of Works for guardianship, and 108 suggestions were received. The committee selected 50 as worthy, 27 were rejected and 31 churches were placed on an ‘undecided’ list (Chapple 2014a, p. 350). Almost all were medieval in origin, with a few restored nineteenth-century churches. However, guardianship in the Ministry of Works was irrevocable, precluding the church’s return to ecclesiastical use and the Ministry subsequently restricted its acquisitions to ruined churches and non-parochial chapels (Thurley 2013, p. 228). In 1951, a draft heritage bill proposed that the Minister of Works should have special powers to revoke guardianship if required, but this was not included in the final legislation. Meanwhile, the Union of Benefices (Disused Churches) Measure 1952 enacted the recommendations of the committee chaired by the bishop of Norwich. This allowed church buildings to be preserved as monuments after closure, but there was no corresponding secular legislation. Crucially, powers were extended to allow other uses for disused churches, as specified in individual planning schemes. Nevertheless, the overall scheme was still subject to consultation with the Central Council for the Care of Churches (CCCC, formerly the Central Committee for the Protection of English Churches), the diocesan pastoral committee, the patron, the incumbent and the parochial church council (PCC). If a building was of historical or artistic significance, the Minister of Works was involved; and if a demolition was proposed, the scheme had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It was apparent from the late-night parliamentary debate that understanding of what the measure entailed was lacking and

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

51

concerns were also raised about endowments for closed churches and lack of church provision in new areas (Hansard 1952). Meanwhile, in the secular world, the principle underlying the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 was to preserve country houses, preferably in use and occupied, to reduce reliance on care by the Ministry of Works. As the Act contained no ecclesiastical exemption, the Ministry was keen to include churches in its remit. However, there was concern about setting a precedent for redundant churches, and inclusion was overruled by the Treasury. As Nick Chapple (2014a, p. 7) explains: Essentially there was a failure on the part of the government as a whole to appreciate the importance of the issue and the proposal was reduced to a narrow argument between Treasury and Ministry of Works officials over Ancient Monuments expenditure.

To create a ‘powerful buffer’ between the Minister and the owners of country houses seeking grants (often with connections to parish charities), advisory councils were established for each part of the UK (Hansard 1953). The Historic Buildings Council for England gave grants only to outstanding (predominantly secular) buildings, a criterion never clearly defined. In 1953, the Church Assembly also created the Historic Churches Preservation Trust (HCPT), appointing Ivor Bulmer-Thomas as its first chair.8 At this juncture, it did not anticipate the extent to which he would question the process of maintaining historic churches over the next few years. The Church Commissioners provided modest support of £2000 per year to the HCPT, and the trust also relied on private donors to provide vital funds to repair churches belonging to all major Christian denominations, not just Church of England property (Chandler 2006, p. 227). Following consultation with the Minister for the Historic Buildings Council, grants could be made to the HCPT towards the cost of maintaining church buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest. This policy emphasised that these buildings should be in use or brought into use after repair, as there was unwillingness to spend money if the buildings were not maintained.9 During 1954, the Ilford Commission was asked to investigate and prepare for a new measure to consolidate existing legislation relating to the rearrangement of pastoral supervision and diocesan boundaries. The committee examined approximately 40 acts of parliament and measures of the Church Assembly passed during the

52

D. BONNETTE

nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with a view to streamlining processes further.10 By 1955, the chair of the HCPT, Bulmer-Thomas, had persuaded the Church of England to introduce Quinquennial Inspections (QIs), fiveyearly inspections of church fabric by qualified architects (The Independent 1993). The Times (1955) explained that ‘If the measure was loyally accepted it could be the biggest revolution that had taken place in the care of churches’. After long debate, revisions and raising concerns about the practicalities for large rural dioceses, QIs were eventually enshrined in the Inspection of Churches Measure 1955, which required each diocese to establish a scheme to provide funds to appoint architects and cover costs. For the first time, this measure enabled the creation of a larger body of architects specialising in church repair. The CCCC prepared a standard logbook format for recording works to each building, and in 1956, it suggested to the Archbishop of Canterbury that some redundant churches should be taken into the guardianship of the Ministry of Works, although this did not happen immediately (Findlay 1996, p. 107). Despite the establishment of the HCPT and greater awareness of buildings at risk, over 100 nineteenth-century churches and a small number from other periods were demolished in 1956. The Church Assembly wanted to care for or keep only selected churches, whereas Bulmer-Thomas had been keen to care for every church. He tried to make the case that ‘the Church of England has a moral obligation, as enjoying the endowments that go with establishment, to maintain all the historic churches in the land’ (The Times 1956a). An article in The Times (1956c) called attention to Bulmer-Thomas’s passion and the Church’s opposing view. It detailed a very emotional argument with the Archbishop of Canterbury, highlighting how Bulmer-Thomas had felt ‘flattened but unbowed’. Also depicted were two noisy scenes in which he clashed with the dean of Gloucester and the archbishops of both Canterbury and York. BulmerThomas claimed that Archbishop Fisher of Canterbury had ‘held a pistol to my face while the Dean of Gloucester plunged his dagger into my back’ (The Times 1956c). Lord Esher, chairman of the HCPT grants committee, attempted to provide a more balanced view, commenting on ‘the natural rivalry between those who believe the cure of souls must be put before every other consideration, and those who believe that souls are incurable and that a thing of beauty is a joy forever’ (The Times 1956b). Bulmer-Thomas’s plea was heard by others concerned about historic churches, and in 1957, the formation of the Friends of

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

53

Friendless Churches (FFC) was announced, an organisation set up to secure the preservation of churches and chapels of architectural or historic interest that were beyond the scope of existing organisations (The Times 1957). Bulmer-Thomas was elected the first chair of the FFC, and John Betjeman, another significant figure in the conservation world, became secretary. The FFC was firmly opposed to the demolition of any churches of either Church of England or Nonconformist denominations. In 1957, the Victorian Society was also inaugurated against a background of almost universal dislike and destruction of Victorian buildings. John Betjeman was its first secretary. In June 1958 the CCCC formulated a new constitution, which reduced its huge membership from 106 to 25, appointed by the Standing Committee of the Church Assembly. By this time a church could be taken out of use in a complex variety of ways: through the Reorganisation Areas Measure 1944, through a supplementary scheme and order of the Commissioners, through the Union of Benefices Measure, through the Commissioners’ scheme ratified by an Order in Council, pursuant to a faculty granted by the chancellor of the diocese, or under Public General Acts of Parliament or compulsory purchase by a government department or local authority. There were ongoing internal concerns about the Church’s spiritual ministry on new housing estates and in towns, when churches in city centres and rural areas were being used less frequently. The Church of England had already lost over 680 church buildings between 1941 and 1956, and the different pastoral approaches thought necessary for the new areas had serious implications for the likely number of redundant churches in the future (Church of England 1961; Church House 1950–1960; Church of England Statistics Unit data). Anticipating angry responses from heritage organisations if demolition was proposed, a new Archbishops’ Commission for Redundant Churches was created in 1958. The Commission focused on deciding what to do with churches that were closed but considered ‘too eloquent with history to demolish’ (Chandler 2006, p. 118). The Right Honourable Lord Bridges was invited to be chair, and was charged ‘to consider problems arising in connection with churches regarded as redundant but having a claim to preservation on historic or architectural grounds, and to make recommendations as to the procedures for handling such matters and the financial problems involved’ (Archbishops’ Commission 1960, p. 11).11 While the

54

D. BONNETTE

Commission was collecting evidence and sifting through recommendations for a proposed new Pastoral Measure (the third since 1948), the controversial Paul Report was published, which reviewed the payment and deployment of clergy (Paul 1964).12 Paul recommended the establishment of group and team ministries, which the Church Assembly directed should be included in the planned Pastoral Measure (see Chapter 3). This would influence the sustainability of church buildings in the future.

Towards a Strategy: Pastoral Measure 1968 (PM1968) The Bridges Commission was guided by the view that England’s historic churches were rightly regarded as part of its national heritage (Wilding 1990, p. 37). Having listened to a range of perspectives, the commission did not think it right or expedient for the Church to disown responsibility for redundant churches. Some contributors felt that the buildings stood as witnesses to the greatness and glory of the Church, whereas others saw unwanted buildings as burdensome. The CCCC commented that ‘one basic weakness is that there are too many procedures under which redundant churches may be demolished’ (Findlay 1996, p. 110; Wilding 1990, p. 16). Statutory procedures were criticised because diocesan committees did not necessarily take advice on churches’ historic and architectural merit. Each diocese also provided lists of its redundant churches and of potential church redundancies in the ensuing 15 to 20 years, as shown in Table 2.1. Some dioceses did not provide complete lists, and figures changed because of problems with the return of information. However, Peterborough, Lincoln, London and Norwich had the most redundant churches at the time, and Bristol, Peterborough, Salisbury and Hereford believed that many of their churches would become redundant. The Lincoln Diocese did not provide any figures for possible redundancy, although it had gathered local lists in preparation for wholesale reorganisation (Lincoln Diocese 1968).14 The proposed measure was given prolonged scrutiny and was not finally approved until 1967. It would be ‘the most complex enactment ever to have received the approval of the Church Assembly’ (Hansard 1968). The Times (1966) reported on the ‘widely divergent views’ of the Church Assembly, with many of the 200 tabled amendments relating to redundant churches. Bulmer-Thomas claimed that the delay was caused

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

55

Table 2.1 Redundant or potentially redundant churches in each diocese, 196013 Diocese Bath Birmingham Blackburn Bradford Bristol Canterbury Carlisle Chelmsford Chester Chichester Coventry Derby Durham Ely Exeter Gloucester Guildford Hereford Leicester Lincoln Litchfield

Redundant

Possible

22 3 5 3 8 3 1 4 3 3 2 1 3 4 21 1 1 5 3 32 0

17 28 8 4 34 2 2 9 6 6 2 1 22 0 17 4 1 45 3 No figure 9

Diocese Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Norwich Oxford Peterboro’ Portsmouth Ripon Rochester Salisbury Sheffield Southampton Southwell St Albans St Edmund Truro Wakefield Winchester Worcester York Total

Redundant

Possible

2 48 4 4 57 8 29 3 1 2 15 4 2 2 4 5 5 1 8 5 24 361

7 11 15 No figure 28 7 37 5 1 4 41 No figure 3 2 12 7 15 3 6 10 16 450

Source T.N.A., Ministry of Housing and Local Government, HLG 103/135, January 1960

by the reluctance of many members of the Church Assembly to accept the fundamental principle of the Bridges Report ‘that the Church has a partial and continuing responsibility for redundant churches of historic or architectural interest’ (Bulmer-Thomas 1970, p. 4). The proposed measure attempted to reduce the number of interested parties locally and give more central control, while retaining sensible standards in the national heritage sector. There was fierce debate in the House of Lords, where Lord Beaumont of Whitley suggested that the measure suffered from over-centralisation and increased the Church Commissioners’ control. He announced: ‘In my view, it does not begin to measure up to what the Church needs today. Nevertheless, a crumb is better than no bread’ (Hansard 1968). Controversial elements of the measure to assist reorganisation included provisions to dissolve a benefice even if the incumbent

56

D. BONNETTE

withheld his consent, a power that ‘has proved to be so valuable that it is now permanently incorporated in this new Measure’ (Hansard 1968). Previously, reorganisation schemes could be held up for a considerable time, and the Lord Bishop of Chester commented that this new measure ensured that in future they ‘cannot be thwarted by the non-cooperation of a single clergyman’ (Hansard 1968). The patron’s permission was no longer needed to suspend a presentation, and he or she could not exercise the right of presentation if there was a scheme for pastoral reorganisation.15 Team ministries could be established, because it was believed an individual incumbent ‘often leads to an undesirable parochialism in the worst sense of the word, and it leads to isolation and loneliness’ (Hansard 1968). For redundant churches, the measure sought to balance strictly pastoral needs with preservation and defined the stages through which redundant churches must pass before decisions were taken about their future. Drafts for discussion and consultation were prepared at each stage prior to formal enactment. When a church was declared redundant under a pastoral scheme (Fig. 2.2), the building was vested in the relevant diocesan board of finance. While deciding its future a redundancy scheme (Fig. 2.3) was prepared. During a ‘waiting period’ of up to three years, a redundant churches uses committee (RCUC) in each diocese would be responsible for seeking new uses for designated churches (PM1968, S.49). Decisions on the suitability of proposed uses, or demolition if no suitable use was found, would rest ultimately with the Church Commissioners. Divergent views would not be overcome with a division of powers, which is why a single body and full consultation with an advisory board was recommended. The board had to have representatives with expert knowledge and high standing to give ‘a balanced and authoritative view as to the weight to be attached to historic and architectural considerations’ (Archbishops’ Commission 1960, p. 44). A worrying element for the heritage bodies was that consent was not required for demolition of a listed church if it was carried out under PM1968. Two new bodies were recommended: the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC) to oversee architectural aspects of proposals, and the Redundant Churches Fund (RCF) to care for churches of outstanding architectural or historical interest (PM1968 S.42(3)). Public money would be provided to the RCF, which would receive up to £200,000 from the state in the first five years, with a similar sum from the Church Commissioners.16 A third of the sale price of a redundant

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

57

Fig. 2.2 Pastoral scheme, 1968 (Source Extracted from PM1968)

church, up to £100,000, would also be contributed to the RCF (PM1968 S.52(1)). Churches of exceptional quality would be vested in the Minister of Public Building and Works. Bulmer-Thomas welcomed the new partnership between Church and state, which would ‘in theory’ mean that ‘no church of architectural or historic interest will be lost even though no longer required for worship’ (Bulmer-Thomas 1970, p. 3). However, he remained concerned about the proposed one-to-three-year waiting time for decisions on the future of redundant churches. As he explained: Isolated country churches within reach of big towns are liable to be prey of marauding gangs and urban churches in central areas from which the population has moved are liable to be visited by stone-throwing urchins. (Bulmer-Thomas 1970, p. 12)

Bulmer-Thomas also perceptively suggested protection against lead roof thieves, over 40 years before action was finally taken by parliament.

58

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 2.3 Redundancy scheme, 1968 (Source Extracted from PM1968)

To begin a redundancy process, the relevant diocesan pastoral committee was obliged to seek the CCCC’s views in the form of a report on the architectural quality and historic interest of the church, its contents and curtilage, and the context of other churches in the area. This raised the CCCC’s importance and influence in the process. Sections 51 and 65 of PM1968 gave the Church Commissioners power to sell churchyards and allow their development, which was a key change from relying on private bills. Only the Home Secretary could give permission to sell a churchyard without the removal of human remains. PM1968 was an important template for the future of church redundancy, and subsequent legislation soon followed its framework. It should also be noted that the Church Commissioners had spent more than £7 million on new churches over the preceding 14 years, relating to 409 churches, 434 church halls and modernisation of vicarages (The Daily Telegraph 1968).

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

59

A series of legislative acts and measures followed PM1968. The Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969 allowed for the sharing of Anglican church buildings with other Christian faiths, although worship was to be scheduled at different times (c. 38). In addition, a private peer’s bill, introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, led to the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure 1970. Alongside this, in 1970 Owen Chadwick was appointed chair of an Archbishop’s Commission established to make recommendations on the relationship between Church and state, and to consider how to promote greater unity between individual churches (Archbishops’ Commission 1970). This committee reviewed the forms of legislation available to the Church of England and decided that proceeding by measure was still preferable to using private bills. This gave the Church of England considerable discretionary powers, not all of which were in its long-term interests. All these administrative changes and legislation facilitated some emblematic closures, and several were recommended by the ABRC to the Ministry of Works because of their symbolic importance, notably, St Mary in Studley Royal, Yorkshire, St Mary in Kempsey, Worcestershire, Edvin Loach Old Church in Herefordshire and St Peter in Barton-on-Humber, Lincolnshire. St Peter was proposed in 1972 so that the Department of the Environment (DoE) could investigate its Saxon foundations. It was received as a deed of gift in 1976 (Chapple 2014b, pp. 14 and 33), although this arrangement was withdrawn in 1981 because no policy had evolved to deal with transferred churches. However, the question of whether PM1968 could work as a template for redundancy without exacerbating local conflicts and tensions remained unanswered.

The 1968 Measure in Action: Tension and Amendment The Synodical Government Measure 1969 established powers to replace the Church Assembly with the General Synod, and all existing and subsequent measures would become the responsibility of this new body.17 Meanwhile, based on the recommendations of the Places of Worship Commission, the new General Synod attempted to pull together the disparate bodies involved with churches, and its proposals took effect in January 1972. Against the wishes of the CCCC, its name was changed to the Council for Places of Worship (Findlay 1996, p. 83).18 The CampbellBasingstoke working party, established in 1973 to review the operation

60

D. BONNETTE

of the measure, reported in 1975 that there was ‘less than proper regard to the doubts and apprehensions of those most closely affected by the recommendations of diocesan pastoral committees’. It recommended a code of practice for PM1968, which was not published until 1976. By 1975, over 500 churches had been declared redundant and in 1976, with controversy growing on all sides, the General Synod began a more comprehensive review of the church redundancy process. The most significant issue was demolition, which some believed the PM1968 positively encouraged (The Times 1977). SAVE Britain’s Heritage was formed in 1975, and the Thirties Society in 1979.19 Major heritage bodies, which became collectively known as national amenity societies, monitored changes to historic buildings and attempted to affect national policy. To prevent demolitions of listed churches and unlisted churches in conservation areas the government agreed that churches (but not cathedrals) in use for worship would be subject to non-statutory public enquiries and could receive state aid for their fabric. State aid was administered by the Historic Buildings Council (HBC) on behalf of the DoE. Repairs, and to a lesser degree conservation, were eligible for grants, which were given only to buildings of outstanding architectural interest that would not be declared redundant in the foreseeable future. A total of £1 million a year was initially made available from 1978, an amount recommended by the Church of England itself. In a calculation apparently based on 1973 estimated costs, it assumed that only 30% of churches would need to apply on financial grounds. This proved to be a very serious underestimation for which ‘the Church must take some responsibility’ (Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas 1990, pp. 299–300). In the meantime, state aid held back the tide of potential redundancies, as highlighted by Roy Strong and SAVE founder Marcus Binney with their influential Victoria and Albert Museum exhibition, Change and Decay: The Future of our Churches. This was organised to draw attention to the problem of unloved churches and to offer positive ideas about how complex situations might be resolved. Binney claimed that in 1977, ‘the centres of cities like Leeds and Liverpool have been depopulated by planners just as surely as the Highlands were cleared by the Lairds’ (Binney and Burman 1977, p. 33). He argued that churches should not be valued against national yardsticks, but by local people who understood the assets and their value to the area.20 In 1978 the Church Commissioners promoted their own exhibition at Church House portraying new and alternative uses for redundant churches.

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

61

Advice on redundancy had to balance the Church’s mission with heritage protection, and thus the process continued to be perceived as complex, overbearing and long-winded. Discussion and debate continued into the 1980s about roles and responsibilities within the process, and about the ecclesiastical exemption enshrined in legislation in 1913. It was not universally popular and was viewed by many as unsupportable following the introduction of state aid for listed churches. Heritage societies, especially, viewed Church of England systems as inadequate compared with secular ones. The Victorian Society also felt that it was ‘a notorious scandal under the present system that so few redundant churches are properly maintained by the responsible dioceses’ (Victorian Society 1984, p. 4). Therefore, in 1980 the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission was established, with the purpose of reviewing the Church’s systems of control. However, the Church Commissioners were not given a place on the review panel. This commission considered whether demolition of listed redundant churches should continue to be the final responsibility of the Church Commissioners. Individual Church Commissioners gave evidence to the commission, claiming that secular control would be undesirable. In its final report, the commission was still minded to remove responsibility from the Church Commissioners, informed by a note submitted by Ashley Barker, a senior official in the Historic Buildings Division of Greater London Council. He had argued that ecclesiastical exemption should not extend to churches no longer in use, as they could be protected in the same way as secular buildings. He sought to remove the Church’s freedom to demolish and felt that the ‘Church’s procedures, particularly in the case of redundant churches, are secretive and bear unfavourable comparison with the “openness” of local authority planning procedures’.21 This displeased the Church Commissioners, who mounted a coherent defence. They contacted the chairman of the commission, the bishop of Chichester, threatening that if it were to recommend changes to the present procedures, ‘then they would be on a collision course with the Church Commissioners’.22 The Church Commissioners felt that the ABRC’s work could not be as open as secular planning systems owing to the sensitive pastoral and spiritual issues surrounding potential closures of parish churches. The commission’s final report, published in 1984, was over 200 pages long and incorporated 230 recommendations. It highlighted tensions between those who thought the system a waste of time, and conservationists who felt unable to put forward their concerns but recommended that the ecclesiastical exemption should be retained.

62

D. BONNETTE

This was much debated, and eventually led to the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (Church of England 1984).23 In response, the Victorian Society claimed that the tone of the report presupposed an adversarial relationship between amenity societies and the Church, and identified loopholes exploited by the Church to demolish major parts of buildings if minor parts remained in use for worship24 (The Victorian Society 1984: Leicester Civic Society 1984). It felt that amenity societies were excluded from the system and that some repairs were deliberately made worse, raising questions about the proper discharge of the Church’s duty. There was a desire for greater transparency amongst public conservation groups and charitable trusts associated with heritage, but the Church of England constantly resisted what it saw as excessive intrusion into its internal affairs. Reform was promised in the next important administrative change, but the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1982 did not fulfil expectations. This measure removed the ABRC’s responsibility for issuing certificates for church demolitions to make way for replacement churches and made the Church Commissioners responsible for decisions to demolish. The latter were obliged to take the ARBC’s views into account but were not bound by them. The measure also changed the unfettered right of objectors to any draft pastoral scheme to appeal to the Privy Council. Approximately, three or four appeals were heard each year, which would in future be exercisable only with the prior leave of the Privy Council. If a building was listed or in a conservation area, the Secretary of State for the Environment could intervene and order a non-statutory enquiry in contentious cases before demolition proceeded. The 1982 measure was not well-received by some in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, nor by Patrick Cormack MP in particular, who argued that he could not ‘accept that the system will be improved as a result of what is really a reduction in the right of the individual parishioner and the individual parish’ (Hansard 1982). The ABRC also campaigned against the proposed measure, feeling that it was unwise to leave decisions in the hands of the Church Commissioners, who prioritised internal pastoral and spiritual matters and would find it difficult to resist diocesan pressures to reject the board’s advice (Hansard 1982). Despite concerns, the measure was passed and was then consolidated into what became known as the Pastoral Measure 1983 1983 (PM1983). PM1983 was effectively an amalgamation of PM1968 and Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1982. It, too, was large and complex, running

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

63

to 105 pages of legislation, but did not alter the ethos or basic procedures for dealing with redundant churches. The main changes, other than financial ones, included preparing for future changes by establishing the potential power to set up a new body to replace the ABRC and RCF (PM1983, S.45); allowing for the demolition of redundant churches requiring extensive structural repair (S.46(3)); adding archaeological interest to the architectural quality and historical criteria used by the ABRC to decide on the future of redundant churches, and providing an option for direct vesting in the RCF at the time of redundancy (S.47(2)); reducing the minimum waiting period from one year to six months (S.49(1)); dealing with the unwanted contents of redundant churches more effectively (S.49(2))25 ; adding an option for a building to remain vested in the diocesan board of finance on specified terms for an undetermined period (Archbishops’ Council 2004); and enabling the de-vesting of churches previously vested in the RCF (PM1983, S.58). The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission’s involvement was also included in the National Heritage Act 1983 (c. 47; see also PM1983, S.66). Many aspects of the measure gave the appearance of change, while continuing to preserve the Church’s autonomy. The National Heritage Act 1983 abolished the Historic Buildings Council and established a Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (HBMC), which also took on the functions of the Ancient Monuments Board. In 1984, the HBMC was rechristened English Heritage (EH) and became responsible for administering repairs to historic churches (National Heritage Act 1983 (c.47), S.39). While the secular heritage sector was symbolised in one new body, the Church of England had overlapping agencies designed to preserve its centralised powers. However, the matter did not end there. A controversial Archbishops’ Commission report, Faith in the City, published in 1985, identified a need for urban priority areas, blaming many economic woes on Thatcherite policies. The report also answered accusations that PM1983 was overly bureaucratic and created too many delays by commenting ‘No doubt in particular instances the accusations are justified. On the other hand, we have been reminded that one person’s “delay” is another person’s right to be consulted’ (Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas 1985, S. 7.34, p. 148). The report recommended that there should be earlier and more open consultation with community organisations and bodies such as housing associations when redundant churches were put up for sale. Further work on sales to other faiths was

64

D. BONNETTE

also promised. Notably, in 1986 the RCF reported demolition to be at an all-time low. Delicate negotiations had been taking place since 1971 to ‘resolve the conflict between those who accuse the Church of vandalising its precious heritage, and church officials who want no state interference’, and in 1986, the government and the Church of England made a deal to end the dispute over demolishing churches that were listed buildings (The Times 1986). There had been some unfortunate demolitions of listed churches and the difficult compromise entailed tighter planning controls to block such demolitions in return for more state aid for their upkeep. The Times spoke of a ‘breakthrough’, although it was ‘unlikely to satisfy the conservationists’ (The Times 1986), and by the 1990s further measures were being proposed.

Increasing Financial Need In 1990, EH’s grants to churches rose to £9 million, compensating for the impact of the controversial community charge introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government during her third term of office. This amount was acknowledged to be still far too little, and the money was only for churches in town conservation areas. In October 1990, it was reported that EH had spent its budget for 1990–91 in the first six months of the financial year and was refusing all church repair grants because of a backlog of applications and price rises. The red tape mentality of civil servants inherited from the DoE was also criticised (Loehnis 1990, p. 4). The Archbishops’ Commission’s report, Faith in the Countryside (1990, pp. 300–301), which focused on rural areas, was very critical of the policy and of EH. Its major complaint was that EH would only give grants to churches of outstanding architectural and historic interest, a highly subjective aesthetic judgement reliant on the competency of its inspectorate. The Commission, with some justification, thus believed that building’s value to communities or local settings was insufficiently considered and that specifications for repairs tended to involve use of expensive traditional materials. The report noted that insufficient regard was paid to the practicalities of using churches for worship, and that EH’s overstretched administration failed to maintain adequate lines of communication, causing considerable misunderstandings. The gap between rural common sense and the bureaucratic need to record and justify any action

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

65

and expenditure was constantly highlighted since it ‘leads to added correspondence and acrimony’ (Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas 1990, p. 301). The report concluded that: To many in rural areas it is particularly ironic that the Department of the Environment’s share of the funding of the Redundant Churches Fund is now 70 per cent, but an open church, which a small congregation is struggling to keep alive, may receive much less for an essential structural repair to keep it safely in use! (Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas 1990, pp. 301–302)

The Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 (implemented in 1993) was nevertheless a significant step forward in uniting secular and ecclesiastical systems of control. The Anglican faculty jurisdiction paralleled listed building control, and the new measure widened the body of representatives considering applications. Seeking advice from the DAC was the equivalent of consulting a secular planning officer and obtaining a faculty from the chancellor of the consistory court equated to the local authority planning committee. The measure clarified churchwardens’ role in monitoring churches’ condition. It gave archdeacons special powers of intervention, and for the first time involved EH and statutory amenity societies, including the Council of British Archaeology, the AMS, the SPAB, the Georgian Group and the Victorian Society in appointing DAC members and in faculty procedures. Also incorporated into the measure was a proposal, first made in 1977, that suitably qualified surveyors should be allowed to carry out QIs of churches, on an equal footing with architects. However, during this period, financial needs overrode other concerns, and some felt that it would be better to sell or lease unwanted buildings to raise funds. Richard Wilding, former Permanent Secretary of the Office of Arts and Libraries, was appointed by the DoE and the Church Commissioners to review the RCF’s current operational and financing arrangements, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the process leading up to the vesting of a building in the fund, its use afterwards and the possibility of future de-vesting (Wilding 1990, p. 5). The Wilding Report generally gave a clean bill of health to PM1983 and affirmed the redundant church arrangements but made 65 recommendations. The suggested amendments were enacted in the Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1994. Wilding rejected the idea of a merger between the RCF

66

D. BONNETTE

and the ABRC but did alarm the conservation world by suggesting that the role of the Church Commissioners should be strengthened by making them, rather than the government, sponsors of the RCF. Wilding also confirmed that 70% of funding for redundant churches should come from the government and 30% from the Church Commissioners. For the Church Commissioners, this was beneficial, because much of the 30% would come from selling the sites of redundant churches. Table 2.2 shows the breakdown of contributions from the Church and the state from 1969 to 1994, illustrating the Church’s declining share over time and the RCF’s increasing budget, particularly after 1989. By 1994, over £23 million was made from the sale of redundant churches. The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1994 changed the RCF’s name to the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT), which was to be given power to lease its properties. To help to look after churches during the waiting period, the measure also allowed the Church Commissioners to set up a temporary maintenance account financed by the sale of redundant churches (S.5(a)(ii)). Between 1989 and 1994, £250,000 was allocated to this account. The ABRC and the Church Commissioners were to be informed of the costs of proposed repairs before vesting in the CCT, and a more liberal attitude to de-vesting churches was proposed. In 1993, the CCC’s report, Mission in Mortar, was presented to the General Synod, Table 2.2 Breakdown of contributions for the RCF from the Church and the state, 1969 to 1994 Funding period

1969–1974 1974–1979 1979–1984 1984–1989 1989–1994 Total

Breakdown of C of E contribution From Church Comms. £M

From church sale proceeds £M

0.2 0.7 0.95 1.9 2.5 6.25

0.1 0.35 0.5 0.9 1.2 3.05

Total from churches £M 0.3 1.05 1.45 2.8 3.7 9.3

60% 60% 50% 40% 30%

Total from state £M

RCF budget £M

0.2 0.7 1.45 4.2 8.7 15.25

0.5 1.75 2.9 7.0 12.4 24.55

40% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Source General Synod, Financing the Churches Conservation Trust in the Triennium: 2012–2015, p. 6

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

67

which argued that church buildings should play a vital part in spreading the gospel. The National Lottery Act 1993 (c. 39) identified the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) as the body that should distribute money to heritage through the Heritage Lottery Fund (for a useful account of the NHMF, see Jones 1985). The Lottery Fund was a nondepartmental public body reporting through the Department of National Heritage (Culture, Media and Sport from 1997). The NHMF was independent in policy and decision-making, and its remit was to offer grants ‘in addition to’ existing government funding. In 1994, concerned that churches were too often locked, Andrew Lloyd Webber created the Open Churches Trust. This provided funding for caretakers or security devices to keep churches selected by the trust for their architectural beauty open to the public. Between 1994 and 1995, ‘English Heritage was already offering £14.1 million in grants to churches against 520 applications, a success rate of 86 per-cent’ (Derrick 2005, p. 6). However, the Church Needs Survey, carried out in 1994/5, suggested that the minimum annual grant required to help repair Grade I and II* listed Anglican churches would be £20 million, with a further £10 million for Grade II listed churches (Derrick 2005). Many congregations who were ineligible for EH funding turned instead to the Lottery Fund (LF), and over 150 applications were received in the first half of 1995 (Derrick 2005, p. 8). Concerns about being overwhelmed by applications led the LF to prepare guidance notes on church projects. It wanted to try to keep churches open and support schemes sympathetic to the historical integrity of the buildings. However, although the Fund was separate and had different criteria and priorities from EH, ironically experts from the latter were advisers to the LF. The Fund remained keen to work with the more important and outstanding churches but needed to find a way to work with EH’s expert advisers. A modest number of redundancies was expected in the future. The Team and Group Ministries Measure 1995 made alterations to the latest pastoral measure and brought the status of team vicar and team rector closer together as an efficiency measure. Debate about protection for church buildings continued unabated into the twenty-first century. The ecclesiastical exemption remained contentious because control of works on places of worship was isolated from the rest of the historic environment. The reviewed and changing pastoral measures did not please heritage bodies and claims of lack of

68

D. BONNETTE

transparency and clarity persisted. There has been continuing legislation, reviews and publications which are too numerous to list completely and are not the focus of this book. Broadly relevant is the 2014 Church of England simplification task group, set up to consider constraints on its mission and growth caused by ecclesiastical measures and processes.26 The Taylor Review (2017) considered the sustainability of churches and cathedrals and has far-reaching implications and the PM2011 is being reviewed. Redundancy processes are still governed by complex and complicated procedures and are plagued by sustainability issues. Trust remains weak.

Conclusion This chapter has traced the long, slow and involved processes that resulted in extensive regulation and bureaucracy for the protection of church buildings. It has clearly shown that the relationship between state and Church, and the Church and heritage bodies was often strained, especially at a time when the cultural status of leading conservation groups like the SPAB, the National Trust and EH was in the ascendancy. Tensions revolved around demolition of listed buildings and existed because of the Church of England’s insistence on separate control systems and the different, often impassioned viewpoints. The Church had a specific mission to ‘cure all souls’ and had no use for buildings that were not able to fulfil this, while heritage bodies believed that the Church had an obligation to maintain them. The Church did not appear to be interested in the historic value of its buildings nor intent on saving them, and therefore, in the eyes of the heritage bodies, the buildings needed to be rescued. The Church was wary of heritage bodies and experts pursuing their personal agendas but was accused of a lack of transparency in its own processes. The 1991 Measure was a step forward for the involvement of a wider group of interested parties and did help slow the pace of redundancy. However, the lack of trust continued as a distinctive theme. The financial implications of the legislation were wide-ranging and significant public funding was channelled into protecting the Church’s national heritage, which affected the relationship between Church and state. The archbishop’s statement in Faith in the Countryside that the money allocated to maintain redundant churches could be used to keep them open is highly relevant (Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas 1990, pp. 301–302). Meanwhile, although consultation was within the pastoral measures, the views of worshippers in the parishes and their sense

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

69

of belonging to a church appeared to be consistently ignored, and right to appeal redundancy was severely constrained. This situation was identified by Binney and Burman (1977, p. 33) and repeated twenty years later by Matarasso (1995). Many reports concluded that the processes served the Church well, but whether they also served the parish, and its people well is debatable. Overall, this chapter has analysed how the legislation was built on a shared passion for keeping together the national heritage, personal passions and competing priorities, yet resulted in immense bureaucracy and a working culture that hampered progress. This is illustrated by the volume of documents, over 50 reports, numerous debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, parliamentary acts, ecclesiastical measures and personal papers that had to be investigated, sifted and distilled to enable engagement with the overly bureaucratic system. The number of recommendations that flowed from each report, review and consultation was overwhelming. However, tackling bureaucracy was not a priority for the Church because it had other, more pressing internal issues to deal with, including declining clergy numbers, shrinking congregations and questions about the relevance of religion in modern society. The Church has often been accused of creating the circumstances that contributed to its own decline. This issue is addressed in the next chapter, which considers the landscape of the Church of England during the second half of the twentieth century and the strategies used to tackle its challenges.

Notes 1. The Pilgrim Trust an independent organisation founded in 1930, was initially funded by an American, Edward S. Harkness. It funded social, conservation and preservation projects and continues to exist in 2023. 2. Sir Lewis T. Dibdin, 1852–1938, studied at St John’s Cambridge, was an ecclesiastical lawyer and was made King’s Counsel in 1901. In 1903 he was appointed Dean of Arches, the judge who sits on the ecclesiastical court. 3. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048), Box 4 Memorandum by Church Commissioners, 4 April 1983; Randall Davidson, born 1848, was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1903 to 1928. 4. Sir Robert Hunter, one of the founders of the National Trust, led the push for this new legislation. The Act extended cover to more recent and ecclesiastical ruins. At this time the Union of Benefices Act, 1860 (23 &

70

D. BONNETTE

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

24 Vict., c. 142) gave statutory authority for the demolition of churches to the Church under specific conditions. Every parish in the Church of England has a patron who historically was most often the local landowner. Patronage gives the right to appoint the incumbent. Bishops now hold the patronage of approximately half of all parishes, some are in the hands of clergy or church bodies and some are in the hands of private individuals, societies or the Crown. Under this measure, the Queen Anne’s Bounty Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners amalgamated. The Queen Anne’s Bounty Commissioners, founded in 1704, supported poorer clergy and focused on poor rural areas. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, founded in 1836, were responsible for reorganising dioceses, abolishing surplus posts in cathedrals and funding bishops and some cathedral costs. They focused on urban areas and financed churches and clergy in newly populated areas. Between 1948 and 1958, 231 churches were demolished, most having been built in the nineteenth or twentieth century. Two-thirds of the total were war damaged which meant that one-third were demolished for other reasons and eight proposed demolitions were not approved. Between 1924 and 1958, 63 churches were appropriated for secular use. Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, born in 1905, studied at St John’s Oxford and had a seat in the House of Laity. He became chair of the London DAC in 1951, secretary of the Ancient Monuments Society in 1958 and its chair between 1975 and 1990. A Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries in London in 1970, he was awarded a CBE in 1984 for services to church heritage. He was described as ‘short, feisty and dazzlingly bright’ (Saunders 2006, p. 22). At the same time, the 1953 Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure incorporated powers already enacted whereby a bishop could declare that, for five years or less, the patron might not present to a living while the bishop made adequate provision for pastoral oversight. The fiveyear period could be renewed after consultation and, for example, could be held together without a formal union of benefices. Principally the Union of Benefices Measures 1923–1952, Pastoral Reorganisation Measure 1949, New Parishes Measure 1943 and Reorganisation Areas Measure 1944 and 1954. Edward Ettingdene Bridges, 1892–1969. Lord Bridges had recently retired as Permanent Secretary of the Treasury. Paul suggested new corporate parochial forms to rectify a fundamental misallocation of resources. He wanted a return to a congregational church with voluntary ministers. Later revisions in brackets were from clerics who had problems sending in the returns.

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

71

14. Regional differences in the number of churches already redundant by this time were due mainly to what was known as the ‘Baedeker Blitz’. Between 1942 and 1944, the Luftwaffe bombed cities deemed to be of cultural value. Hereford stands out from this list. 15. A right of presentation is the patron’s right to present an incumbent for appointment. A suspension of presentation is the temporary removal of this right for pastoral reorganisation purposes. 16. The Redundant Churches and Other Religious Buildings Act, 1969 (c. 22) empowered the Minister for Public Buildings and Works (Secretary of State for the Environment), with the approval of the Treasury, to make grants to the RCF. 17. Synodical Government Measure, 1969 (No. 2) renamed and reconstituted the Church Assembly as the General Synod, established diocesan and deanery synods and reviewed the functions of the PCC. 18. In 1981 it reverted to its original name but dropped the word ‘central’, becoming the CCC. 19. The Thirties Society became the Twentieth Century Society in 1992. 20. Roy Strong remains a passionate advocate of permitting church fabric to be re-used in imaginative ways relevant to their communities: https://communionarchitects.com/article/sir-roy-strong-st-petersblazes-a-trail-for-others-to-follow (accessed 19 June 2019). 21. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048), Box 4 Church Commissioners Board of Governors, Report by General Purposes Committee, April 1983, p. 3. 22. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048), Box 2 Church Commissioners Redundant Churches Committee meeting, 14 September 1983b. 23. The Church Commissioners had made a concession that the Council for British Archaeology would be notified of all faculty applications and should have the opportunity to intervene if necessary. 24. ROLLR, DE7543 Leicester Civic Society, uncatalogued file, The Victorian Society—The Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Building Control, 1984. 25. In its Annual Report (1982, p. 17), ARBC commented that ‘We find it depressing that some dioceses still appear to regard fixtures, fittings and furnishings as “optional extras” which are expendable at will, and do not form an integral part of an historic ecclesiastical heritage’. 26. Leicester City Council. 1988. Places of Worship in Leicester 1987: Report of the Working Party on Sites and Buildings for Places of Worship. Leicester: Leicester City Council.

72

D. BONNETTE

References Archival Sources LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048), Box 4 Church Commissioners Board of Governors, Report by General Purposes Committee, April 1983a. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048), Box 2 Church Commissioners Redundant Churches Committee Meeting, 14 September 1983b. Lincolnshire Archives (hereafter LA), D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048), Box 4 Memorandum by Church Commissioners, 4 April 1983. The National Archives, Office of Works, WORK 14/2350, memo, 25 March 1950.

Published Sources Archbishops’ Commission. 1960. Redundant Churches Report 1958–60. London: Archbishops’ Commission. Archbishops’ Commission. 1970. Church and State. London: Archbishops’ Commission. Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas. 1990. Faith in the Countryside. Worthing: Churchman Publishing. Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas. 1985. Faith in the City: A Call for Action by Church and Nation. London: Church House. Archbishops’ Council. 2004. A Measure for Measures: In Mission and Ministry— Report of the Review of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Related Measures. London: Church House. Binney, M., and P. Burman. 1977. Change and Decay: The Future of Our Churches. London: Littlehampton. Bulmer-Thomas, I. 1970. The Problem of Redundant Churches. Leighton Buzzard: Ecclesiological Society. Chandler, A. 2006. The Church of England in the Twentieth Century: The Church Commissioners and the Politics of Reform 1948–1998. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Chapple, N. 2014a. A History of the National Heritage Collection, Volume Six: 1945–53. Portsmouth: Historic England. Chapple, N. 2014b. A History of the National Heritage Collection, Volume Eight: 1970–1983. Portsmouth: Historic England. Church Assembly. 1949. Report of the Committee on Disused Churches. London: Church Assembly. Church House. 1950–1960. Church of England Yearbooks. London: Church House.

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

73

Church of England. 1921. Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1921 (11 & 12 Geo. 5, No. 1). Church of England. 1923. Union of Benefices Measure, 1923 (14 & 15 Geo. V, No. 5). Church of England. 1938. Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938 (1 & 2 Geo. VI, No. 6). Church of England. 1943. New Parishes Measure, 1943 (6 & 7 Geo. VI, No. 1). Church of England. 1944. Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944 (7 & 8 Geo. VI, No. 1). Church of England. 1947. Church Commissioners Measure, 1947 (10 & 11 Geo. VI, No. 2). Church of England. 1949. Pastoral Reorganisation Measure, 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. VI, No. 3). Church of England. 1952. Union of Benefices (Disused Churches) Measure, 1952 (1 & 2 Eliz. II, No. 1). Church of England. 1953. Benefices (Suspension of Presentation) Measure, 1953 (1 & 2 Eliz. II, No. 50). Church of England. 1955. Inspection of Churches Measure, 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. II, No. 1). Church of England. 1961. Facts and Figures about the Church of England. London: Statistical Unit of the Central Board of Finance. Church of England. 1968. Pastoral Measure, 1968 (1968, No. 1). Church of England. 1969. Synodical Government Measure, 1969 (1969, No. 2). Church of England. 1970. Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, 1970 (1970, No. 2). Church of England. 1982. Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, 1982 (1982, No. 1). Church of England. 1983. Pastoral Measure, 1983 (1983, No. 1). Church of England. 1984. The Continuing Care of Churches and Cathedrals: Report of the Faculty Jurisdiction Commission. London: CIO Publishing. Church of England. 1991. Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, 1991 (1991, No. 1). Church of England. 1994. Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 1994 (1994, No. 1). Church of England. 1995. Team and Group Ministries Measure, 1995 (1995, No. 1). Council for the Care of Churches. 1993. Mission in Mortar: The Role of the Church Buildings in the Decade of Evangelism. London: Church House. Derrick, A. 2005. A Review of Heritage Lottery Fund/English Heritage Funding to Places of Worship 1996–2005. Guildford: AHP. Ecclesiastical Committee. 1938. Seventy-sixth Report: Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1938. London: HMSO. Findlay, D. 1996. The Protection of our English Churches: The History of the Council for the Care of Churches 1921–1996. Bristol: Church House.

74

D. BONNETTE

Hansard. 1924. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 4 June 1924. Hansard 57, cols. 861–867. Hansard. 1952. House of Commons Parliamentary Debates, 4 December 1952. Hansard 508, cols. 1893–1906. Hansard. 1953. House of Commons Parliamentary Debates, 3 July 1953. Hansard 517, col.758. Hansard. 1968. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 13 May 1968. Hansard 292, cols. 2–25. Hansard. 1982. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 17 June 1982. Hansard 25, cols. 1185–1200. House of Commons Information Office. 2010. Church of England Measures. London: House of Commons Information Office. Jones, A. 1985. Britain’s Heritage: Creation of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Lincoln Diocese. 1968. Into Tomorrow: A Report on the Pastoral ReOrganisation. Lincoln: Lincoln Diocese. Loehnis, D. 1990. Heritage cash crisis hits church repairs. The Sunday Telegraph, 14 October, p. 4. Matarasso, F. 1995. Spirit of Place: Redundant Churches as Urban Resources. London: Comedia. Paul, L.A. 1964. The Deployment and Payment of the Clergy: A Report. London: Church Information Office for the Central Advisory Council for the Ministry. Saunders, M. 2006. Protecting the disused but beautiful. Context 93: 22–25. The Daily Telegraph. 1949. 300 unwanted churches. The Daily Telegraph, 5 November. The Daily Telegraph. 1968. £7 million for new churches in 14 years. The Daily Telegraph, 30 December. The Independent. 1993. Obituary: Ivor Bulmer-Thomas. The Independent, 8 October, p. 24. The Times. 1912a. The care of ecclesiastical buildings: Sir Lewis Dibdin on outside interference. The Times, 11 July, p. 4. The Times. 1912b. Vandalism at Christchurch, Hants. The Times, 21 November, p. 13. The Times. 1912c. The protection of ancient buildings. The Times, 31 December, p. 9. The Times. 1950a. The care of cathedrals. The Times, 13 March, p. 5. The Times. 1955. Expert inspection of churches. The Times, 9 May, p. 5. The Times. 1950b. Preserving ancient churches: The Pilgrim Trust’s work. The Times, 18 May, p. 8. The Times. 1956a. Church Preservation Trust difference on policy. The Times, 14 July, p. 6. The Times. 1956b. Preserving churches. The Times, 28 July, p. 7.

2

THE CHURCH, THE STATE AND NATIONAL HERITAGE: …

75

The Times. 1956c. Assembly clash on ‘neglect’ of historic churches. The Times, 16 November, p. 7. The Times. 1957. Saving friendless churches. The Times, 13 August, p. 5. The Times. 1966. Redundant churches reconsideration. The Times, 9 July, p. 8. The Times. 1977. New controversy on fate of redundant churches. The Times, 11 July. The Times. 1986. New controls will help to prevent demolition of redundant churches. The Times, 13 October, p. 5. Thurley, T. 2013. Men from the Ministry: How Britain Saved Its Heritage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. UK Government. 1900. Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict., c. 34): An Act to Amend the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882. London: HMSO. UK Government. 1913. Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913 (3 & 4 Geo. V, c. 32). London: HMSO. UK Government. 1919. Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919 (9 & 10 Geo. V, c. 76). London: HMSO. UK Government. 1947. Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 (7 & 8 Geo. VI, c. 47). London: HMSO. UK Government. 1953. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953 (1 & 2 Eliz. II. c. 49). London: HMSO. UK Government. 1969. Sharing of Church Buildings Act, 1969. London: HMSO. UK Government. 1983. National Heritage Act, 1983. London: HMSO. UK Government. 1993. National Lottery etc. Act, 1993. London: HMSO. Victorian Society. 1984. The Ecclesiastical Exemption from Listed Building Control. London: The Victorian Society. Webster, P. 2020. Parliament and the law of the Church of England, 1945–74. In The Church of England and British Politics since 1900, ed. T. Rodger, P. A Williamson and M. Grimley, chapter 10. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Wilding, R. 1990. The Care of Redundant Churches: A Review of the Operation and Financing of the Redundant Churches Fund. London: Stationery Office Books.

CHAPTER 3

The Church as an Institution—Finance, Ministry, Repair and Redundancy

The year 1971, whose trademark was galloping inflation, was not any old year, its message to all kinds of organisations was ‘adapt or go under’. (Lincoln Diocesan Leaflet 1972, p. 1) A shift from a directive, top-down strategy to something more adaptive and collaborative, working with the grain of the Church rather than against it, has potential to improve morale and build confidence, ridding the institution of the lingering smell of desperation. (Hackwood 2022)1

The message from both quotations, despite being 50 years apart, is one of needing to adapt. Both call for a different ecclesiastical strategy. In the 1970s, it was to cope with the country’s rapidly changing social, cultural and financial landscape and in the twenty-first century, it is to move away from the directive top−down approach adopted by the Church of England. Yet, the Church had undergone significant transformation through the twentieth century as it responded to external change. It formed a different relationship with the state, centralised more of its work, created strategies to mitigate shortages of clergy and provide better conditions of service, reacted to decline in attendance and worked with cumbersome measures to deal with churches no longer required for worship. However, historians have questioned the effectiveness of directive, top−down strategies, accusing the Church of basing © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_3

77

78

D. BONNETTE

decisions on an internal belief in secularisation and not applying strategies systematically. For the schemes conceived at a national level ‘could founder at a parish level due to lack of resources, a decline in the number of ordinands, ineffective allocation and clergy resistance (Lloyd 1966). The dioceses were attempting to balance central requirements with local circumstances, pursue their own policies and provide a ‘cure of souls’— with fewer staff and less money—at a time of declining authority of the Church. In the parishes, incumbents and parochial church councils (PCCs) were responding to diocesan decisions, facing declining engagement from parishioners and trying to keep their churches open with little funding. How far did the perceived internal weaknesses and strategies employed by the Church to cope with rapid social and cultural change drive churches towards redundancy? Between 1968 and 2000, two of the three main reasons cited nationally for making a church redundant were financial issues and the condition of the building. These interlinked reasons, reflected in the data for the dioceses of Lincoln and Leicester, were the consequence of a range of factors related to central decision−making and the cumbersome bureaucratic procedures which evolved. The following examination of the two dioceses reveals how, as the context changed over time, the circumstances that could lead to church closure became more complex. The first section begins by tracing the approaches taken during the 1940s and 50s as the Church of England began to adapt.

Beginning to Adapt: 1940s and 1950s Historically, incumbents had relied on income from glebe rents, tithes, Easter offerings, pew rents and the patronage of wealthy individuals to fund their stipend.2 However, by the beginning of the twentieth century there was a significant decline in parochial giving, which weakened the perception of the importance of stewardship. Payments of pew rents had largely ended, wealthy landowners who had previously supported their churches financially had died, taking their philanthropic ethos with them, and voluntary beneficence was replaced with commercial fundraising events (Green 1996; see also Morris 1992; Yeo 1976). Sarah Flew blames the Church ‘for failing to establish in its laity strong and lasting foundations of financial obligation’ (Flew 2016, p. 140). Churches developed a dependency on commercial fundraising as they could no longer rely on previous measures. Many incumbents were too poor to retire, and their

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

79

inadequate stipends ensured that they remained in post until they were very elderly. This was reflected in the Lincoln Diocese. In the late 1940s, Bishop Maurice Harland described the clergy as ‘sad and disheartened’ and in the 1950s, Bishop Kenneth Riches found them ‘on average battered, elderly and poor, with the vision, and the provision unaltered from the 1930s’ (Laurence 1999).3 At the same time, there was an ethical Christian attitude towards finance in the churches and PCCs did not wish to be seen to be in either personal or collective debt. For instance, at Redbourne St Andrew, Lincolnshire in 1943, one PCC member regularly used his own personal resources to subsidise the parish because there were insufficient funds in the account.4 Vestry minutes in both Lincoln and Leicester dioceses show considerable time and effort devoted to fundraising, not always successfully, through a variety of familiar activities such as jumble sales, teas and fetes. Parishioners did not necessarily attend church and engaged only in fundraising activities like church fetes as a leisure pursuit. They came to view their earnings as their own property, which they did not feel obliged to give to the church (Flew 2016, p. 132). Clergy recruitment was also suffering decline; hence, the Pastoral Reorganisation Measure 1949 required dioceses to survey their manpower and financial needs. Bishop Harland found that there were ‘not enough parsons to go round. And if there were, there is not enough money to give them anything like a living wage’ (Lincoln Diocese Pastoral Committee 1950, p. 3; The Times 1986). As a consequence of vacancies becoming harder to fill and a vast number of tiny churches, Harland experimented with a radically new model of ministry in the Lincoln Diocese.5 This was to have ramifications not only in his diocese but across the Church of England. Reverend Arthur Smith had become the rector of South Ormsby in 1946, when country work was considered a job for older men (Smith was 47).6 The parish’s total population, which included three other villages, was 215. Smith found the churches in a poor state of repair: Driby badly needed restoration and both Bag Enderby and Somersby were shockingly neglected. Smith was soon bored and lonely and empathised with parishioners’ concerns. He wrote: The feeling I gained, so far as country work was concerned, was that people were also tired … of being a dumping ground for old semi-retired clergy

80

D. BONNETTE

especially those who had no previous knowledge of the countryside or of the interests of the people. (Smith 1960, p. 20)

In 1949, Harland pressed an initially reluctant Smith to form a new team approach to rural ministry and persuaded parishioners to support the idea. Smith took on 15 parishes covering approximately 75 square miles, with a population of around 1,100 (Fig. 3.1), and supported by a team of two curates, a deaconess and a lay reader (previously six incumbents for 1,000 people). These included South Ormsby, Ketsby (no church), Calceby (no church), Driby (closed 1970), Harrington with Brinkhill, Somersby with Bag Enderby, Tetford with Salmonby (closed 1966), Farforth, Ruckland and Maidenwell (no church) and Oxcombe (closed 1979).

Fig. 3.1 The Ormsby Group of churches, 1950 (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

81

A group bus was used to convey congregations around the parishes to weekly church events, and its purchase generated much national interest (Manchester Guardian 1952). It took some time to develop the approach since not all incumbencies were vacant at the beginning of the experiment. By 1959, 500 people were attending festival services regularly, and the team ministry attracted imaginative younger clergy to serve in Lincolnshire villages (Bowden 2003, p. 17; The Times 2001). This kept Driby as well as Salmonby and Oxcombe churches open, even though these villages each had a population of under 50. The ministry experiment was quickly heralded a success and replicated across the diocese, and in other dioceses around the country, including Norfolk and Suffolk. However, no account was taken of the fact that Smith’s personality and energy had driven the Ormsby Group forward, and the model was not universally welcomed by the clergy. Smith noted to his ‘surprise and sorrow’, that ‘many of the clergy have yet to see the immense and exciting possibilities in this new approach’ (Smith 1960, p. 98). Smith left the group in 1960 to become archdeacon in the Lincoln Diocese, where he could further promote the approach. Significantly, the experiment was not systematically evaluated and, although initially productive, it was not sustainable in the longer term, as it presupposed that a team of ministers could be created nearby. Indeed, by the end of the twentieth century, the South Ormsby group had just one female priest (Beeson 2007, p. 61). While the Ormsby approach was gaining ground, the staffing situation was urgent in the Lincoln Diocese and Harland tasked a commission to consider different organisational ideas. Deliberations took three years, resulting in the 1950 report, No Secret Plan, which was rich in meaning and implication. It highlighted the needs of the Lincoln Diocese, where considerably more than half the population lived in towns but many more incumbents were in rural areas. The report stated that in 1900 there had been 680 parochial clergy and an annual intake of 20 newly ordained deacons. By 1950, the number of parochial clergy had reduced by 230 and the annual intake was seven, about a third of what it had been. Furthermore, many older, pensionable clergy were staying on to help, a situation echoed in many dioceses across the country, including Leicester. The report recommended over 180 churches for plurality arrangements, although it was noted that a plurality was regarded by some as an unwelcome imposition from above. To overcome this negativity, it was controversially suggested that each parish should be challenged to justify their claim for a resident priest, although this was not followed

82

D. BONNETTE

through. Pluralities were viewed as an interim measure, while grouping churches was highlighted as a potential longer-term policy. The Lindsey Archdeaconry, in particular, gave considerable attention to grouping on the Wolds. Across the diocese, over 27 groups were recommended with eight or nine churches in a group, served by three priests. However, tellingly, lay members of the commission were more in favour of a small one-man group of parishes. Five churches were recommended for closure in the report, although four other churches had already been closed for worship informally. Both Leicester and Lincoln dioceses adopted pluralities and by 1955, the Lincoln Diocese had amalgamated 75 incumbencies into 34, claiming that there was no possibility of continuing to maintain them as singlecure benefices.7 It felt that ‘this economy of manpower has meant also a considerable economy in stipends and has made possible much greater flexibility in the use of the Diocesan Stipends Fund’ (Lincoln Diocesan Trust and Board of Finance 1955. The Lambeth Conference (1958), recognising the changing attitude to supporting the churches financially, initiated a stewardship campaign for parishioners to give time, talents and money to the church. Vestry minutes in both dioceses illustrate how seriously PCCs engaged in the campaign since it combined finance and mission.

Significant Changes: 1960s and 1970s By 1960, 236 (46%) benefices in Lincoln were held in plurality, compared with 21 (9.2%) in Leicester. (Church of England 1961; Church of England 1950–1988). Lincoln had the highest number of benefices held in plurality in the country (Norwich, the second highest was 36%). Lincoln also had the highest number of parochial livings consisting of more than three churches and vacancies were an issue, as it had 41 vacant livings (Leicester had 25). However, pluralities were essentially impermanent arrangements, because unfilled vacancies caused new plurality schemes, and some churches experienced different plurality arrangements more than once. By 1964, vacancies had risen to 72 in Lincoln, although this had reduced to 46 in 1969 because of increased pluralities. Where information is available, changes to incumbents and long vacancies did not always result in significant changes to communicant numbers in Lincoln or Leicester because of the resilience of worshippers (see Chapter 4.) Yet vacancies were a strategic error if they carried on

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

83

for too long, and according to David Wasdell (1974, p. 118), the impact of accumulated plurality was that ‘we rationalised our decline, making ourselves content with fig leaf representative priestly presence’. The declining number of clergy, changes to population, community and society led to a 1964 report by Leslie Paul (Paul 1964). He highlighted the isolation felt by the clergy and suggested that there was a new role for the laity. A major recruitment drive was needed and a clear policy to direct curates to areas of need in their first five years. Controversially, he recommended a leasehold of 10 years to replace the incumbent’s freehold. He advocated the creation of team ministries in major parishes, with salaried clergy, and recommended powers of pastoral reorganisation should be developed. Thus, the incumbent would lose his freedom to choose where he worked and could lose the protection of his freehold. ‘The old tradition of Anglican freedom will have been seriously impaired’ (Lloyd 1966, p. 609). However, the data Paul used were based on exaggerated clergy estimates in rural areas, which may have led him to believe decline was an urban phenomenon (Gill 2003). Paul’s recommendations were not welcomed or supported by the clergy and thus dioceses adopted changes in an ad hoc manner. By 1965, the numbers of candidates for ordination nationally dropped dramatically from 592 to 576 and continued to decline, until by 1972 they were 362. By 1966, historic endowments funded two-thirds of clergy stipends and parishes had to fund the running costs, repairs and restoration of their churches. The concept of planned giving began to emerge and there were discussions about the use of non-stipendiary ministry to support the clergy, although the bishop of Lincoln did not intend to ordain men to supplementary ministry (Vaughan 1987, p. 224). The 1967 Morley Report, Partners in Ministry (Church of England 1967), built on the ideas of the Paul report, recommending uniformity of remuneration in similar parochial situations, flexibility in dealing with this across the dioceses, a central payment authority to fix stipends, retirement at 70 and losing the freehold. PM1968 (and subsequently in PM1983) incorporated permission to set up group and team ministries in large or demanding parishes.8 It led to national changes to parish boundaries and variations to the model were believed to be a way to ensure the ‘cure of souls’, despite reduced clergy numbers, constrained finances and lack of evaluation of previous experiments. Many dioceses took the opportunity to cluster churchgoers into more successful churches, which Robin Gill believes

84

D. BONNETTE

may have led to, ‘as an ironic side-effect, a larger number of declining churches’(Gill 2003, p. 204; PM1968 S19(1); PM1983 S20(1); Chandler 2006, p. 216; Davies et al. 1991, . 9 There is evidence of this in the Lincoln Diocese where there was a significantly higher number of groups than in other dioceses and some were very large, incorporating potential redundant churches. For example, the Thornton Group consisted of 15 parishes, which included the redundant churches of Wispington (closed 1975, unused) and Haltham (closed 1977, unaffordable repairs) (Lincoln Diocese 1982). The Withern group also consisted of 15 parishes and four of its unused churches were closed: Withern 1950, Tothill 1957, Authorpe 1964 and South Reston 1980. Groups could merge gradually as vacancies arose but there was a sense of continuous change for the congregations who experienced differing patterns of worship. For example, in 1961, Reverend Davies, the incumbent of Spilsby and Hundleby also became priest in charge of Hagworthingham, Aswardby and Lusby until 1965.10 After a five-year interregnum, Reverend Owen took over and Sausthorpe and Langton-with-Sutterby (informally closed 1955) joined the group. Halton was added in 1973 and in 1975, Firsby, Little Steeping and Great Steeping were included. In 1977, Reverend Thorald took over and Raithby was added to the group. The Leicester Diocese also grouped churches and several churches were held in plurality but by the early 1980s, most rural groups consisted of no more than three or four churches. This seems to indicate a different and potentially more positive strategy for grouping, with a much smaller number of churches than Lincoln. Merging churches also had a negative impact on social visibility and interpersonal relationships (Russell 1986, p. 256), and possibly the health of the incumbent (Francis and Brewster 2015, p. 173).11 Bishop Kenneth Riches in the Lincoln Diocese took the opportunity to identify churches that had been closed for worship for years, alongside churches in areas of rural depopulation using PM1968. Into Tomorrow (1968) was a guide to the future reorganisation of the diocese. It controversially named 164 churches that could be closed so that resources and finances could be deployed to best produce lively dedicated Christian communities in the future (see Chapter 5). This was over 20% of the total number of churches in Lincolnshire. Many of them were in Lindsey and around 18 of these churches had already closed informally for worship over the preceding ten years but were not yet formally redundant under the pastoral measure. Identification for closure would have influenced the ongoing sustainability of these churches and the morale of churchgoers,

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

85

although historical significance could protect them and there appeared to be a diocesan reluctance to close them formally (see Chapter 6). Inflationary pressures in the late 1960s meant that the government was struggling to maintain a freeze on incomes. However, in response to the dire needs of the clergy, stipends were raised by three per cent in 1967.12 In 1970, a new pay structure was established to attempt to give more uniform stipends. Half of the income would come from the Church Commissioners, a quarter from diocesan funds and a quarter from parochial giving, Easter offerings and fees. The General Synod agreed that stipend levels should be increased year on year above the rate of inflation and accepted the need for enhanced pension arrangements (for more detail, see Bladen 1998). As a result of central expectations and less money coming from endowments, complex financial formulae were created for the parish contribution, which were challenging for individual churches, and which affected their relationship with the diocese. Strictly speaking, the parish contribution (share) was not legally enforceable, although the Lincoln Diocese regarded it as a payment target. Annual amounts received from each church, locally called the tribute, were published in the Lincoln diocesan Red Book. This enabled churches to compare how fairly the formula was levied, but publicly named and shamed churches that could not pay the expected amount in full. A Christian community with an ethical outlook was not immune to using moral force to raise finances and could easily identify churches that might potentially close. In Lincoln, already-struggling PCCs tried hard and largely succeeded in paying the required amounts throughout the 1960s (Lincoln Diocesan Trust and Board of Finance 1968). However, the gap between targets and payments began to widen for some, which was a financial warning. In 1968, around 15% of churches in the diocese were not paying the target amount (Lincoln Diocesan Trust and Board of Finance 1968). At this time, over 36% of its churches had no method of planned giving, almost the highest percentage across all dioceses, and the average weekly giving of 11d was almost the lowest (Church of England 1972).13 Around 18 of the churches eventually made redundant were already in serious debt, including Authorpe-with-Tothill, which had paid just £5 of the £25 target. Aubourn PCC managed to send a £15 contribution, for which the diocese thanked them, with a reminder that a further remittance was required to satisfy the £60 target.14 In 1970, in response to increased clergy stipends, the Lincoln Diocesan Board of Finance reported that ‘owing to an excess of expenditure over

86

D. BONNETTE

income for the last several years amounting to many thousands of pounds’ there would be a complete reassessment of the parish share, which had remained virtually unchanged for the four previous years.15 It was decided to raise it by ten per cent and rises continued thereafter. A new department of the Church Commissioners was created in 1973 to ensure centralisation of Church finances, with power to fix stipends and with an expectation that dioceses would focus on increased giving by congregations. Between 1970 and the end of 1973, 23 churches in the Lincoln Diocese were formally closed under PM1968, many of which were already informally closed for worship. The Leicester Diocese produced its report on inner city reorganisation of churches because of declining population and recommended the closure of four churches in the city. By 1974, another upward inflationary spiral had prompted a government incomes policy, yet despite these economic pressures, minimum stipends were introduced in 1975 as a result of the Sheffield Formula which implemented equal pay across the clergy regardless of parish giving (House of Bishops 1974). It effected changes to rural–urban clergy deployment.16 Ten more churches in the Lincoln Diocese were made redundant, and after long deliberation, the diocesan synod committed itself to exploring local ordained ministry and requested a ministerial experiment lasting for seven years (Vaughan 1987, p. 280). The proposal by the diocese to lower the standards of training for these ministers was not well received by other dioceses and caused much anxious debate. The 1976 Endowments and Glebe Measure (s.15) finally severed the connection between the parish church and endowment. The diocesan board of finance (s.45 (1)) became responsible for clergy stipends. The parish share was viewed as income and the glebe as capital. The resulting financial burden on dioceses led to more large-scale amalgamations of benefices, particularly in rural areas. Incumbents and congregations had to deal with the differing and changing grouping arrangements organised by the diocese, and were not necessarily happy with them, despite length of tenure. By this time, Lincoln was one of the top 11 dioceses with the highest average age for clergy (Ranson et al. 1977). Some incumbents in charge of groups of churches believed that they lost their individual influence and links with the immediate community. Congregations felt that the incumbent had too many people to deal with and no time for them personally. The vicar of Skidbrooke in Lincolnshire grumbled that it was ‘impossible to look after all the people in the group’ and that he would only ‘focus on the electoral roll people’.17

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

87

By 1977, Church of England finances were in deep crisis because the Church Commissioners had overstretched themselves, causing much internal debate about appropriate allocations of resources. Thus, in 1979, the Lincoln Diocese’s stipend allocation was cut back sharply, and the money redistributed to poorer dioceses (Chandler 2006, p. 259). This was to have a significant effect on its churches, which depended on the whim of their community to donate towards the parish share. The voluntary parish share that contributed to diocesan and central Church of England expenditure was now an expected element of church membership and payment became a heavy burden for some.18 PCCs feared loss of the incumbent and closure if the parish share was unpaid, and therefore discussed their difficult financial situations in vestry meetings over many years, usually alongside maintenance concerns, and often to the exclusion of any more spiritual or community matters. Seven more churches in the Lincoln Diocese were made redundant by the end of 1979 but redundancy of the church did not mean that financial challenges for congregations disappeared. The joint PCC of Owmby-with-Normanby, consisting of mainly Owmby parishioners, was encouraged by the diocese to make Normanby redundant. By doing so, it was discovered that the new parish share was to be based on the numbers on the electoral roll of both churches, making a combined amount of £509. This was £184 higher than the previous year, which the PCC felt was unfair because of continuing responsibility for the maintenance and cleaning of Normanby, until it was taken over by the Redundant Churches Fund. The PCC resolved not to pay the amount required, thereby challenging the authority of the diocese.19

Financial Pressures: 1980s and 1990s The 1980s saw intense public disputes about ethical investments of the Church Commissioners as by then, two-thirds of the portfolio was in underperforming property, compounded by ill-judged speculation in property development (Chandler 2006, p. 331). There were competing concerns between raising stipends and pensions. However, the General Synod aspired to increase clergy pensions, even though no new money was coming in to pay for them. PCCs were getting into financial difficulty while trying to balance financial imperatives. This was especially true if their buildings already needed significant and unaffordable repairs, like many of the tiny Lincolnshire churches. Nine more churches in the

88

D. BONNETTE

Lincoln Diocese were made redundant in 1980 and additional substantial rises to the parish share were on their way, which affected more churches, such as Scunthorpe St John. Despite being the ‘finest building in Scunthorpe’, St John had been threatened with redundancy for many years, since local housing had been demolished but had managed to keep open because payment of the parish share had been sustained.20 By 1978, the electoral roll was 91 and the weekly collection amounted to approximately £40 from more than one service. In 1981, the parish share suddenly increased from £1,500 to £4,300, at which time, the PCC had a bank credit of £580, with an additional £6,000 invested with the diocese.21 However, the roof repair estimate was £4,000 and paying the proposed share would have resulted in a significant shortfall. Placed in a difficult position, the vicar was forced to suggest that the PCC could either pay him for his work (through the parish share), which he knew could not be afforded, or the church could be closed, and parishioners could attend one of the 11 other Anglican churches in the town. The PCC tried unsuccessfully to raise more money from the parish, but in April 1982 the outlook was bleak. The vicar complained that ‘there is no point in my appealing, cajoling, begging, wheedling those with cloth ears, sewn-up pockets and leaden legs’.22 Parishioners no longer felt obligated to support the church financially, especially given a widely held perception that the Church of England, and especially the Lincoln Diocese was wealthy. The vicar’s concerns became reality when the church was made redundant 18 months later. By 1982, the Lincoln Diocese had a total payment shortfall of £662,000 (the equivalent of over £2 million in 2022), and the bishop made the issue public, illustrating strained relationships between the diocese and its congregations. He allegedly accused parishioners in Lincolnshire and South Humberside of having the ‘mantle of Scrooge’ when it came to parish giving, because it was ‘miserably low’, and ‘more money was given to retired donkeys than is put into free giving’ (Grimsby Evening Telegraph 1982).23 Unsurprisingly, small churches struggled to pay the expected share as they faced a complex set of interrelated issues: centralisation of thresholds for stipends and pensions had forced the diocese to make ever-increasing financial demands on PCCs, congregations were small, there were other churches nearby, the number of PCCs in debt was increasing, there were maintenance issues to consider, parishioners were increasingly unprepared to contribute and, in Scunthorpe’s case, its geographical position was unhelpful. Previously protected

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

89

churches, perhaps already in larger groups, thus became increasingly vulnerable as the diocese could no longer afford to staff them, thereby accelerating its church redundancy schemes. It closed 24 churches in just three years between 1980 and 1983, compared with 17 closures in the preceding six years. Finances were a very real challenge for small churches in tiny communities, and for urban churches in areas where populations had declined. The Leicester Diocese was experiencing similar difficulties with a declining number of ordinations and financial challenges but proposed groupings of churches at a slightly later period than Lincoln. By the early 1980s, the Leicester diocesan secretary emphasised the diocesan perspective: It is quite clear that we shall never be able to keep up the same number of priests in the countryside as hitherto, it is vitally important that we think in terms of joining together small communities for the purposes of pastoral care.24

However, there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for grouping proposals both from congregations and the incumbents. Packington PCC stated in a memorandum to the Synod: ‘No parish likes to think it will lose its incumbent and we in Packington and Normanton are certainly no exception.’25 In 1981, the priest in charge of Leicester St Mark ‘did not wish to serve in the team ministry as a Team Vicar’, as he believed he had ‘more to offer than the scope provided by such an office’.26 Notes from the Leicester diocesan visitation in 1983 raised the issue of continued lack of enthusiasm: It is a pity we have not yet been able to embark on the adventure of a rural team. Indeed, until the many separate parishes in the county relinquish their individual PCCs and form a single one with each incumbent, growth will always be stifled.27

The Leicester Diocese saw the establishment of team ministries as a growth strategy rather than management of decline, at least in public. But in the Lincoln Diocese ‘where there had been at least 26 groups of between five and 12 churches’, by 1984 only five of these groups had ‘so much as a single assistant for the rector’ (Neville 1989, p. 313). Melvyn

90

D. BONNETTE

Wilson, a retired incumbent, remembered the confusion and bureaucracy surrounding groups and teams: I recall visiting one such north of Stamford in Lincolnshire — 13 parishes, I think, united. Each still appointed churchwardens. The PCC of the new parish had 26 ex-officio members in addition to those elected. (Wilson 2011, p. 147)

Grouping churches under one incumbent added to perceived marginality, which was exacerbated by lack of clergy residence in the parish, especially if the rectory was sold. Clergy residence was seen as an important indicator of church success, appearing to stimulate both the associational and the community functions of the local church (Francis and Lankshear 1992; see also Davies et al. 1991). In a 1977 survey conducted for East Lindsey’s Women’s Institute, when asked what people missed most in rural life, a resident parson came third on the list after lack of transport and lack of a theatre, even though this had not necessarily been in place previously (Centre for Rural Social Studies 1977). Grouping churches was an opportunity for the diocese to rid itself of old and costly rural rectories in many parishes. Sales of rectories began after World War II and official permission was included in PM1968. In the Lincoln Diocese in 1975, ‘ten parsonages were sold during the year’ and ‘negotiations are in hand for an additional 19 houses’, only six of which would be replaced by new ones.28 Selling rectories caused much consternation and turned out to be a poor property decision (Jennings 2006, p. 117).29 They were soon refurbished by developers and put back on the market with hefty price tags, providing a further example of financially questionable decision making. By 2000, over 8,000 residences had been sold nationally (Jennings 2009, p. 18). Running a group of churches and living a distance from the church community also brought its own challenges for the incumbent (Jackson 2005, p. 18).30 The 1983 Tiller Report envisaged the dissolution of parochial and patronage systems over the next 40 years and introduced the concept of a lay person to team ministry (Tiller 1983). More was being expected from congregational giving because of the diocese taking on further financial responsibility. Faith in the City (1985) raised the need for funding urban areas, and the Leicester Diocese made five of its city churches redundant between 1981 and 1985. Faith in the Countryside followed in 1990, by which time six more rural Lincolnshire churches had been

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

91

made redundant. Lack of funds led individual churches to take more radical steps to attempt to solve their difficulties (Petchley 2018).31 In the Leicester Diocese, Edmondthorpe united with Wymondham in 1951, and had a history of finance and maintenance issues. Indeed in 1977, the PCC discussed selling the church silver to raise funds. In 1982, redundancy was proposed, although the arrival of a new vicar prompted a change of mind.32 However, in 1987, owing to high costs of church repairs and upkeep of the seventeenth-century Smith monument, the PCC applied for a faculty to sell a pair of eighteenth-century flagons and a sixteenth-century cup and paten. Unfortunately, this fundraising method was thwarted by the diocesan chancellor, who granted a faculty to sell, but only on condition that the proceeds were invested in a capital fund providing a modest annual income. The plan was abandoned as it would not have covered the repair costs, nor the many thousands needed to restore the Smith monument. By 1991, repair estimates had risen to £128,600, and at this point, the average collection was only £10. Redundancy appeared to be inevitable, and anecdotally, the closure may have been finally agreed after an elderly female parishioner fell off a ladder while attempting to clear the gutters on the church building.33 Proposed sales of church silver created a paradox for the Church. They promoted strong feeling on both sides and were tightly bound up with issues of religious heritage and the sacred. To some, inanimate objects acquire a sacredness because of their use. The history and heritage behind what had often been gifted to a particular church became an issue. Nevertheless, silver from redundant churches was often given to other local churches without historical connections, which suggests that individual history was unimportant, if the silver remained within the Church of England. Inability to pay repair bills could lead to church closure, and at the same time, valuable silver was kept in church vaults owing to high insurance costs. This dilemma was frequently argued over. According to a writer to the Church Times (1973a), ‘it is preposterous, and indeed immoral, for the Church to make ever-increasing financial demands on its laity when it has so much redundant wealth lying around in museums and bank vaults’. A Banbury vicar offered an alternative view: Church plate, I maintain, should only be disposed of in a very grave emergency, and not as an easy way out of a temporary difficulty. When I go to the altar with our Jacobean ‘cup and cover’ at great festivals, I know that I

92

D. BONNETTE

am holding something very precious - a visible and tangible link with the past. (Church Times 1973b)

Although selling church silver was relatively rare, it provided temporary respite to struggling churches, but permanent loss of treasure. It also appears that the focus on conservation and protection of church valuables could effectively prevent a building being kept open for worship.34 This controversial method of temporarily financing churches in difficulty illustrates the depth of financial crisis faced by some PCCs, and merits further exploration beyond the remit of this book (see Church Times 2021).35 By the early 1990s, during Archbishop Carey’s decade of Evangelism, Church Commissioners accrued loses of several hundreds of millions on speculative property purchases, which again compelled them to cut back on grants to dioceses. Dioceses were forced to fund the shortfalls through requiring even more from individual churches. There was also a Church-wide review of pensions, and amid an ever-widening gap between income and spending needs, a loss of £624 million between 1989 and 1991 was announced (The Times 1993). This had a significant impact on churches that had previously managed to sustain payments to the diocese. In 1987, the parish share for the medieval Belgrave St Peter in the city of Leicester was approximately £8,000 (over £153 per week).36 The PCC was maintaining a historic building, which was costing over £5,000 a year, supporting the activities in the church hall and providing communication through a parish magazine. In 1989, the share increased by 11% and again by 17% in 1990, at a time when the average increase across the diocese was nine per cent.37 The diocese had already asked for a contribution to the next phase of the Church Urban Fund and had allegedly donated to the fund the surplus from unfilled clergy vacancies, rather than supporting the parish share. This angered the PCC members who agreed that ‘the crippling increases in the parish share, year by year, were draining our resources to the point at which we had to choose between keeping the buildings sound and paying our share’. The situation did not improve and in 1992 there was an increase of 30% in the parish share, at a time of declining attendance, although St Peter’s figures were the third highest in the deanery (131).38 Belgrave was an area with an increasing number of ethnic minority residents who had their own places of worship. The PCC was also paying arrears from the previous year and predicted a shortfall of over £6,000. A fear was expressed that the church would be forced into a team arrangement if it couldn’t be demonstrated to the diocese how the

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

93

situation could be rectified.39 A decision was made by the PCC to visit non-churchgoing people in the parish and ask for donations towards the £13,927 parish share and the maintenance of the building. However, this approach was unsuccessful. The 1991 recession saw cuts to diocesan funding from the Church Commissioners, with a recommendation that clergy could retire at 65, candidates for full-time ministry limited to save money and stipends provided from collections. In 1993, the Leicester diocesan formula for the parish share was to be changed and the PCC of St Peter’s appealed against further rises. Unfortunately, they were informed by the diocese that, as they had successfully raised funds for a new heating system in the past, they must be able to do even better this year.40 By March 1993, there was an incumbent vacancy, and the church was held in suspension to allow for diocesan discussion about pastoral reorganisation.41 The diocese forecast that the parish share would need to rise by 50% by 1997 in order to fulfil diocesan needs.42 Over ten years, St Peter’s suffered from dramatically increasing demands from the diocese in response to central pressures, which became unaffordable as their worshipping numbers declined. The PCC became cynical about diocesan decision-making and its apparent lack of understanding about individual circumstances. St Peter’s church eventually became part of a team arrangement in the city and closed for worship in 2010.43 By 1994, older clergy were more likely to be appointed to rural and multi parish benefices, despite a tendency to be less effective in this situation (Francis and Lankshear 1994). Ten more churches were made redundant in the Lincoln Diocese. The Archbishops’ Council, established in 1999, set up a review of clergy stipends, to assess whether they were adequate to prevent financial hardship and the 2001 report Generosity and Sacrifice (Archbishops’ Council 2001) detailed many recommendations. Between 1959 and 2001, there had been a 61% reduction in the number of clerics ‘on the ground’ in the Leicester Diocese, and during the same period, Lincoln had reduced the number by 56%. Direct voluntary giving per week nationally was £3.78. It was £5.12 in Leicester and £2.49 in Lincoln, which was the lowest in the country (Church of England 2003). Of the Lincoln churches made redundant by 2000, over 80% were in a grouping arrangement. In the 50 years from 1960, the number of amalgamations and team ministries nationally had risen by 54%. (A Church Commissioners’ report (2014) found that grouping multiple churches under one leader has a detrimental effect on growth). A national ministry

94

D. BONNETTE

was funded by congregations rather than its parishes, who attempted to keep their churches open during a long period of often bewildering changes. The status and identity of clergy depended on fiscal sustenance (Percy 2006, p. 74), and a further hindrance was the responsibility for church maintenance and repair.

Issues of Maintenance and Repair Nationally, the poor condition of church buildings was cited in over 40% of cases for closure, and it was a particularly challenging issue for PCCs over a long period in both Leicester (33%) and Lincoln (50%). Maintenance of buildings was not always regarded as worth spending money on from a mission perspective. Buildings’ quality and durability varied, especially when successive generations had added to, restored or conserved them with different materials. For example, use of Lincolnshire limestone promoted further stone decay.44 Legally, the churchwardens were (and are still) responsible for the maintenance of the fabric and contents of the church, sharing oversight with the PCC. Regular maintenance by the PCC was vital, but in many cases this either did not take place, or inappropriate materials were used. Hence, in 1955 the heritage lobby, specifically through Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, pushed and gained approval for Quinquennial Inspections (QIs) of churches because of genuine concern about botched repairs to church buildings.45 QIs ensured the involvement of qualified architects recommended by the diocese, who would inspect churches, prepare reports and cost necessary repairs. BulmerThomas claimed that ‘a churchwarden’s “hunch” could never be a wholly satisfactory substitute for professional knowledge’ (The Times 1955). This much-lauded approach promised to be beneficial in protecting churches from poor restoration and repair and keeping them well maintained. The bishop of Rochester, debating the issue in the House of Lords, claimed: We are finding that, as the parochial church council are relieved of the trouble of having their church inspected, and also of any special fee for inspection, their response in carrying out the work indicated as necessary by the inspection is admirable and full of good will. (Hansard 1955)46

Lawrence Bond, Lincoln diocesan architect and conservator of Lincoln Cathedral, agreed that QIs brought unseen issues to light, and ‘there can be no doubt that the majority of churches are now in far better order

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

95

than 25 years ago’ (Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust 1978, p. 6). In practice, however, the QI innovation had unintended consequences and was perceived by some to have been a tipping point into closure.47 It revealed the very real challenges for PCCs struggling to maintain their church fabric, especially if their buildings had insufficient architectural or historic merit to gain funding from other sources for repair. If the PCC did have a QI, members were often frightened by the long list of repairs and their cost and found it difficult to prioritise spending of their meagre resources. Some PCCs chose not to have a QI at all, even though it was a statutory expectation. There was a 30-year gap between QIs at Aisthorpe St Peter, and Haugham All Saints had none between 1957 and 1980.48 North Cockerington St Mary had a QI in 1964, but little work was done, and by 1977, the extensive repairs required were beyond the village’s means.49 However, not all churches without a formal QI fell into disrepair. Despite a 15-year gap between checks at Oxcombe All Saints, the church was reported to be in fair order in 1977, possibly because it was situated in the grounds of a manor house.50 In 1999, the Council for the Care of Churches (CCC) completed a survey of QIs and found significant faults that made churches vulnerable to redundancy.51 One in three dioceses had no written scheme setting out requirements, and many had no funds to pay for them. There was concern over the quality of inspectors, who were hard to remove from approved lists if they were not up to standard or did not possess the appropriate heritage and conservation qualifications. Nevertheless, despite the lack of formal schemes for a third of all dioceses, the CCC concluded that the vast majority of churches were being inspected properly. In the Leicester and Lincoln Dioceses, QIs were viewed as laudable in principle, but in practice, particularly in Lincolnshire, could create more problems than they solved. Some PCCs did commission inspections, but then asked cheaper local workmen rather than specialists to undertake the repairs. These workmen did not necessarily have specialist skills nor use the best materials. There were many examples of poor restoration and repair, inevitably leading to greater repairs later, which horrified the heritage bodies.52 PCCs discussed maintenance to church buildings continuously, especially roof repair, often with little resolution. Roof repair fundraising became a common occurrence. The costs caused much anxiety for very small, generally elderly and often female congregations, sometimes inclining them to choose or be persuaded into the closure route because they

96

D. BONNETTE

had no prospect of raising the necessary funds. This was extremely dispiriting for PCC members and congregations trying their best to keep the churches open. The list of faults and relative danger of the buildings eventually made redundant in the two dioceses is alarming (Tables 3.1 and 3.2), and raises questions about monitoring, guidance and support by the diocese. The quality of the building materials and the local geology were issues for some churches. Many examples of subsidence were included in the maintenance reports, and the churches were also notoriously damp and poorly ventilated, providing perfect conditions for fungal and insect attack (www.buildingconservation.com; Leicester Mercury 2021).53 However, other problems were created by the diocese, incumbent, churchwardens and parishioners, all of which had unforeseen consequences for the condition of the church building. Incumbent vacancies forced churchwardens to sustain church activity with a succession of temporary clerics, who may have had no loyalty to a specific church nor general oversight of maintenance issues. In large groupings of churches, if the incumbent had too many churches to supervise, and services were held in the better maintained churches, the other churches were closed informally and just left to deteriorate, as in West Barkwith (Figs. 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4). Successive bishops in the Lincoln Diocese closed some churches informally, many years before seeking formal redundancy, which led to vandalism and a worse state of repair before formal procedures took place. Incumbents’ theology could affect the condition of churches, especially if they believed that their role was one of mission rather than maintaining historic buildings. This was exacerbated by churchwardens who, while having responsibility for the fabric, did not always have the skill or finance to deal with issues, nor the ability to seek applicable grants. Although happy to complain about the condition of the building, parishioners did not consider it their responsibility to do anything to improve the fabric. Faults were evident at all levels of responsibility for churches, and neglected churches were a worrying blot on the landscape, unwanted by parishioners and dioceses alike. Continual references to lead theft and repair in PCC minutes and in newspapers added to the perception that these churches were vulnerable.54 Criminal damage symbolised declining respect for the Church of England in the twentieth century. (In 2021, despite significant funding over many years, the cost of necessary repairs to Anglican churches was approximately £1 billion). Churches

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

97

Table 3.1 The reported condition of churches in the Lincoln Diocese, categorised by alternative future use Church

Build date

Condition

Informal closure

Demolished Asgarby

18th

1961

Aubourn (part)

19th

Authorpe

19th

Grimsby St Stephen Grimsby St Luke Little Carlton Miningsby Moorby Muckton Salmonby South Kelsey

20th 20th 19th Pre-15th 19th 19th 15th 20th

West Barkwith

19th

Wildsworth

19th

Wragby Vested Barnetby Burringham Burwell

18th

Neglected, damp, derelict Unsafe, water seeping in Shifting foundations, unsafe Subsidence Vandalised Structural instability Poor condition Structural instability Unsafe, cracking walls Poor condition Unsafe structure, dry rot Roof poor, terrible condition Neglected, bricks disintegrating Dangerous ruin

1951 1983 1980

Goltho

16th

Great Steeping Haceby Haltham

18th Pre-15th Pre-15th

Little Cawthorpe Normanton North Cockerington

19th Pre-15th Pre-15th

Redbourne

Pre-15th

Saltfleetby All Saints

Pre-15th

Unsafe, roof problems Needs new roof Damp, poor repair over 30 yrs No quinquennial, derelict Unsafe Unsafe Problems stonework, slate, gutter Serious subsidence Repairs required Extensive repair required Suffered many years of neglect Insecure foundations

Pre-15th 19th Pre-15th

1968 1979 1972 1969 1980 1975 1974 1966 1905 1980 1973 1964

1970 1963 1967 1977 1996 1969 1980 1973 1971

(continued)

98

D. BONNETTE

Table 3.1 (continued) Church

Build date

Condition

Informal closure

Skidbrooke South Somercotes

Pre-15th Pre-15th

1969 1987

Waithe

Pre-15th

Yarborough Trust Aubourn

15th

No lead, disintegrating Immediate repair needed Alarming state, near collapse Poor condition

1968

Brauncewell

16th

Covenham Monument Hawerby Saltfleetby St Peter

Pre-15th

Unsafe, water seeping in Fair condition neglected for years £30,000 repair costs

Pre-15th 15th

Needs roof repair Tower in dangerous state

1974 1972

Residential Broxholme

19th

1988

Cold Hanworth

19th

Cumberworth

Pre-15th

Heckington Panton Withern

19th 18th 15th

Church deteriorating for years Isolated dangerous structure Roof deteriorating /damp/gutters Derelict Severely vandalised Unsafe, serious subsidence

Other Barton on Humber Claxby Low Toynton Maltby Manton Wood Enderby

Pre-15th 19th 19th Pre-15th 19th 19th

Spreading dry rot Derelict Very bad repair Serious structural repair Unsafe serious cracking Unsafe, separating from tower

1971 1980 1960 1994 1977 1974

19th

1995 1981

1969 1977

1973 1976 1975 1975 1973

Sources Extracted from the reports written before formal redundancy by the Council for the Care of Churches or, if between 1972 and 1981, the Council for Places of Worship; Church of England database, 2007. Informal dates taken from individual church records

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

99

Table 3.2 The reported condition of churches in the Leicester Diocese, categorised by alternative future use Church

Build date

Condition

Informal closure

Vested Allexton

Pre-15th

1997

Brentingby Garthorpe

Pre-15th Pre-15th

Stretton-en-le-Field Demolished Hinckley old church Leicester St Leonard Leicester St Matthew Residential Hoton Other Leicester St Mark Willesley

Pre-15th

Poor repair, no heating or lighting Poor state of repair Roof in poor state, subject to ground movement Very poor state of repair

19th 19th 19th

Poor state of repair Poor state of repair Poor state of repair

1909 1981 1984

Pre-15th

Long list essential repair

1987

19th Pre-15th

Very poor state of repair Damp and cracking walls

1981 1987

1970 1987 1982

Sources Extracted from the reports written before formal redundancy by the Council for the Care of Churches or, if between 1972 and 1981, The Council for Places of Worship; Church of England database, 2007. Informal dates taken from individual church records.

also suffered neglect prior to, and because of, the very slow bureaucratic redundancy procedures.

Bureaucratic Delays and Decay The redundancy processes created by the PM1968 could exacerbate the challenges of financial decision-making, staffing difficulties and deteriorating and unused buildings. The procedures were long and cumbersome and necessitated the involvement of a range of time-consuming committees, both centrally and within the dioceses. It is not surprising that there may have been some reluctance to make a church redundant, although there were financial rewards if there was a successful sale of a building. The redundancy process was divided into two legislative parts, the pastoral scheme which formally declared the church redundant and the redundancy scheme which provided for its future use. Both schemes allowed for consultation, and the time taken from a closure decision to finding suitable alternative use could be very long. First a draft pastoral scheme was

100

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 3.2 External view of West Barkwith church, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

published, and any interested parties had 28 days to respond. Amendments were made, followed by further consultation on the amendments and a possible appeal process before the formal pastoral scheme closed the church. Some churches had already closed informally at this point. There was then a ‘waiting period’ of between six months and three years, unless there were no objections to demolition, or the church could be vested in the Redundant Churches Fund (RCF). During this period, the diocesan Redundant Churches Uses Committee had to find, test and approve alternative uses (PM1968/83 S.50(1); (see Appendix 6 for a process flowchart). After this, a draft redundancy scheme was published, giving 28 days for responses. Any amendments were then made, and the final redundancy scheme was agreed. This was not straightforward, as numerous examples in the Leicester and Lincoln Dioceses reveal. The diocese was required to investigate any offers to purchase the church. Some buildings were more suitable for conversion than others, and prospective purchasers faced challenges. These included distance from

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

101

Fig. 3.3 External view of West Barkwith church showing damage to end of building, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

amenities, poor access, worse states of repair than initially thought, lack of parking, objections to residential use by the local community or the planning authority and proposed uses that were harmful to the character of church buildings. Sales could and often did fail repeatedly for the same church. Once an alternative use had provisionally been identified, the diocese had to balance the expectations of many interest groups involved in the consultation process. The Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC), which had the final word on suggested adaptations, could, and often did, intervene if changes were not in keeping with the building’s character. Its interventions took the form of enforceable covenants to safeguard buildings internally and externally after they were sold, and prospective purchasers were wary of these. Interest groups, public opinion, media interest, ABRC involvement, the views of planning officers and multiple attempts to sell delayed the completion of sales. Some churches had several alternative uses over time as they were sold more than once, and each new use occasioned a raft of meetings and

102

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 3.4 Internal view of West Barkwith church showing state of interior, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

an abundance of paperwork.55 In addition, Church Commissioners and diocesan meetings were fixed at extended intervals and lacked the flexibility to respond to individual cases. Thus, Wilding (1990, p. 40), who investigated the redundancy process, found that the three-year waiting period limit had ‘ceased to exert any real discipline’ on dioceses. The Leicester Diocese successfully found alternative uses within three years for 78% of churches closed under a pastoral scheme between 1968 and 2000 (Table 3.3). Ten churches, generally those to be vested in the RCF, had almost no waiting time, whereas four city churches were in the system for longer than seven years. In the Lincoln Diocese, around 67% were dealt with within three years, while for seven churches in Lincoln the timeframe was protracted Table 3.4). Length of time in the system created difficulties for the dioceses and the localities, particularly public perception of a declining Church of England. One aspect that considerably lengthened the timeline but is masked in the data was informal closure, long before a declaration of

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

Table 3.3 Time taken between pastoral scheme and redundancy scheme in the Leicester Diocese56

Number of years

Number of churches

Within a year 1–3 years 4 years 5–6 years 7–8 years

10 8 1 0 2

9–10 years 11–12 years

0 1

18–19 years

1

103

Church name

Belgrave St Michael, Leicester St John Leicester St George Leicester St Mark

Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division records and records for individual churches

Table 3.4 Time taken between pastoral scheme and redundancy scheme in the Lincoln Diocese57

Number of years

Number of churches

Within a year 1–3 years 4 5 6–8

17 39 10 6 4

10

1

11 12–14

1 3

15

2

Church name

Moorby, Caenby, Covenham, Panton Stamford St Michael Asterby Little Carlton Cold Hanworth Scunthorpe St John Maltby Le Marsh Hawerby

Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division records and records for individual churches

104

D. BONNETTE

redundancy, leaving churches empty or only partially used and vulnerable to vandalism (see Appendix 7 for a full list of informal closure dates where known, which are extracted from individual church records). This occurred in both dioceses but was especially prevalent in the Lincoln Diocese, where 33 churches had in effect been empty (or only used sporadically) for over nine years before new uses were found (Tables 3.5 and 3.6). For example, Caenby had been unused for over 30 years, and Agarsby and Panton for over 26 years. All were in a very poor state of repair by the time their futures were agreed. Withern St Margaret in the Lincoln Diocese exemplifies the potential difficulties during a protracted search for alternative use. The CCC reported that the church was considered to have little architectural merit, the chancel was dangerous and needed considerable repair, the porch needed rebuilding, the nave walls were probably leaning outwards, the windows had broken glass and decayed mullions and there was grass growing out of the walls (Figs. 3.5 and 3.6). It had not been used for worship for some years, was informally closed in 1973 and was formally proposed for redundancy in 1979. Because of the building’s poor condition, the ABRC did not oppose its demolition unless an alternative use could be found. The diocese felt that ‘no-one in his right mind would dream of converting this church to a dwelling place; its walls are rubble filled, and the only solid bits are some columns inside the church’.58 The incumbent believed that the villagers opposed its use as a house and would prefer demolition. Unfortunately, East Lindsey Local Authority Table 3.5 Time taken between informal closure and pastoral scheme in the Leicester Diocese Number of years

Number of churches

Church name

Within a year 1–3 years 4 years 9–10 years 11–12 years 13–14 years 24 years

4 8 4 1 2 2 1

Leicester St John Belgrave St Michael, Garthorpe Leicester All Saints, Leicester St George Leicester St Mark

Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division records and records for individual churches (where information is available)

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

105

Table 3.6 Time taken between informal closure and pastoral scheme in the Lincoln Diocese Number of Years Within a year 1–2 3–4 years 5–6 years 7–8 years 9–10 years 11–12 years

Number of churches 2 8 14 12 6 11 5

13–14 years

4

15–16 years

4

17–18 years 19–20 years 21–23 years 26 30

3 1 2 2 1

Church name

Asterby, Covenham, Salmonby, Wildsworth, Withern Cold Hanworth, Cumberworth, Little Carlton, North Elkington Chapel Hill, Hawerby, Maltby, Scunthorpe Low Toynton, Sutterby, Stamford Tothill Barnetby, Manton Asgarby, Panton Caenby

Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division records and records for individual churches (where information is available)

initially refused planning permission for an alternative use, but eventually gave provisional approval in March 1981. In June 1982, the church was on the market for £1,000 and a potential purchaser provided outline plans, querying whether it would be permissible to reposition the gravestones around the edge of the churchyard. Although the ABRC did not meet formally until February 1983, it offered an informal view on the plans, or ‘niggling suggestions’ according to the Lincoln Redundant Churches Uses Committee (Committee’s minutes of 17 January). There was concern that the advisory board’s views might ‘kill this sale stone dead’ but the plans were approved, draft redundancy papers were produced and the Church Commissioners required the tombstones to be catalogued before they were moved.59 Despite it being in a dreadful condition, the church was finally sold in May 1985 with many restrictive covenants on the building. However, the purchaser died two years later before completing the conversion, and the church was sold by auction to another buyer. Unfortunately, restrictive covenants were breached during the conversion, and when

106

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 3.5 External view of Withern church, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

the building was resold in February 1988 and again in February 1989, each new purchaser inherited the breaches of covenant. The purchasers were allegedly unaware of the regulations and following a site visit by East Lindsey Council in April 1989, the owners were sued for removing historic windows without planning permission. The ABRC was horrified at the poor quality and inappropriate internal alterations, and Rob Walker, the local conservation officer, complained that ‘I’ve never seen a church so totally altered in my life. The damage is so bad it can’t be undone but prosecution will be a message to all owners of listed buildings’ (Lincolnshire Standard 1991). The church was sold again in 1995, and was for sale once more in 1998, the fifth time in 16 years. There were also emotional arguments against moving the gravestones, which took the diocese some time to resolve. Withern church suffered from difficulties from all sides: the incumbent failed to register the closure of the church formally; local people did not look after the church but they opposed conversion; the local authority did not initially support conversion; the search for an alternative use was protracted; the diocese

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

107

Fig. 3.6 Internal view of Withern church showing the condition of the building, c. 1980 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

108

D. BONNETTE

was required to maintain restrictive covenants that were either were offputting to purchasers or were ignored; the schedules of the diocesan and ABRC meetings were inflexible; and there was lack of proper monitoring of the building’s conversion. However, given that the shocking state of the original building had attracted no objection to demolition, onlookers might be forgiven for being perplexed by the situation. In the Leicester Diocese, delays were mainly for urban churches that were closed for worship. Finding acceptable alternative uses for very large churches was particularly challenging, as exemplified by Leicester St Mark. By 1981, when the nineteenth-century church closed for worship, it was already in poor repair and the PCC had been exploring using the church hall for services instead. The church seated 900, had a ‘striking exterior’, was ‘an outstanding feature of the Leicester landscape’ and had an interior ‘of restrained dignity’.60 The church had been prominent in the Christian Socialist Movement, and dramatic murals painted by Eadie Reid were behind the altar. Preservation was recommended as the building was too sensitive to withstand adaptation, and use for Christian worship, though not necessarily Anglican, was proposed by the ABRC.61 This was not an easy task for the diocese, especially given Leicester’s changing demography and the identified need to pastorally reorganise the Belgrave area, in which the church stood. A scheme for use as a stage between an emergency hostel and fully independent living was explored, but this would have necessitate installing flush windows in the nave roof. The scheme was allegedly ‘entirely frustrated by one of the main heritage bodies who objected to the roof glazing.’ (Leicester Mercury 2003). By 1986, there had been only one offer of purchase, the formal redundancy procedure was under way and the Ancient Monuments Society (AMS) was urging the diocese to vest the church in the RCF. In 1988, the church was for sale for £100,000, and in June 1989, despite local protests, the diocese hoped to sell it to a Hindu community group, who subsequently withdrew its offer because the price was too high. In February 1993, the diocese spent £10,000 on keeping the church weatherproof and attempting to halt its deterioration, but there were still no firm proposals for alternative use, despite a plea to the public for ideas. The public were warned that the church would be demolished (Leicester Mercury 1993a, 1993b). Local artist, Zena Foster, was so incensed by this proposal that she protested in the city centre every morning for two months, collecting 600 signatures on a petition against demolition. She also wrote to Prince Charles and Terry Waite to ask them to become involved, but this did

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

109

not prevent a demolition notice appearing in newspapers in September 1993 and scaffold being erected to protect pedestrians. Leicester Civic Society wrote to the Church Commissioners in October 1993 asking for a delay, and in December received confirmation of a six-month extension.62 During this period, Terry Waite visited Leicester and gave his support to the church, the AMS reminded the council that time was running out and the Leicester Victorian Society confirmed the building was of national importance.63 The saga appeared to be drawing to a conclusion in May 1994, when an offer was accepted for £50,000 from a Birmingham-based businessman. The owner was promised a grant of £200,000 from English Heritage, but there were delays in receiving it and no work was carried out on the building. During this time, the church was repeatedly attacked by vandals and damaged by weather. In early 1997, the City Council pressed ahead with an urgent works notice for the crumbling building (Leicester Mercury 1997). In December 1998, the Leicester Mercury (1998) reported: ‘Rain is getting into the vacant church through a hole in the roof. Pigeons are also gaining access to the building and droppings have damaged parts of the inside of the historic church, which is the masterpiece of respected Victorian architect Ewan Christian.’ English Heritage provided further grants of £10,000 but the church building continued to decay until it was purchased in 1999 by Ebrahim Sabat, who had plans for a multicultural banqueting hall. Following work by a team of masons from Poland, it was finally opened in 2005 (Leicester Mercury 2005). Leicester Civic Society was so impressed with the conversion that it gave Mr Sabat an award for his work. However, St Mark’s illustrates the lack of local understanding demonstrated by the ABRC, how complex and difficult it was to find alternative uses for church buildings, and how many different people delayed the process.

Conclusion The Church of England steadily built on its already flawed and inefficient systems and the pastoral measure created further layers of bureaucracy. Church Commissioners made very poor investment decisions and delegated major funding issues from the centre to dioceses, which, in turn, struggled to maintain their ageing clergy and substandard buildings. The financial position stagnated, causing a cultural stand-off between bishops, clergy and their declining congregations in wider communities unwilling to support historic buildings that had lost their spiritual meaning. The

110

D. BONNETTE

dioceses were constantly grappling with the issues of clergy recruitment and financial and theological imperatives from above. Church Commissioners were attempting to provide improved conditions of service for clergy over many years. However, countless recommendations flowed from a series of centrally generated reports, which were hard for the dioceses to put into action, while coping with problems of their own. In response to challenges, both the Lincoln and Leicester dioceses adapted their approaches to ministry, although at different times, and in different ways and development was not uniform. The Lincoln Diocese faced significant issues because of its geographical spread of churches, older clergy and historically poor financial contributions from congregations. It was willing to be experimental to ensure a ‘cure for souls’ across the diocese but its approaches were not particularly systematic or consistent and lacked evaluation. This led to a very high percentage of large groups of churches, and it became difficult to maintain regular services or, over time, attract willing incumbents. There were some positives to the approach in the Lincoln Diocese, since some churches had a reprieve from redundancy because they were grouped with other stronger churches. The Ormsby experiment attracted younger clergy to the diocese and the opportunity to sell clergy residences went some way to help the dire funding situation. The Leicester Diocese grouped a much smaller number of churches later than Lincoln, although suffered similar declines in the number of clergy and faced financial challenges of its own. It kept potentially redundant churches open for much longer. However, in both dioceses there was a failure to appreciate the perspectives of the people involved in the changes made. The incumbent was trying to look after too many churches across a geographical area, which did not promote strong relationships with his parishioners. The loss of his living accommodation further marginalised him from the local people. Incumbents did not necessarily want to be part of a team and congregations were unhappy with significant changes, the loss of their incumbent and peripatetic clergy. The dioceses also did not understand loyalty to a specific church or incumbent and the desire of congregations to remain local. Reorganisation took time to agree, meanwhile church buildings began to deteriorate, which was a visible symbol of decline. PCCs in both dioceses struggled to keep pace with the ever-increasing financial demands of the parish share, especially when the rises were sudden rather than incremental. Parishioners became cynical of constant requests for money and contributed less. This left small congregations

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

111

responsible for costs and the narrative is one of anxiety to find sufficient funds and pressure from dioceses to pay more for less ministry. Vestry records give a sense of how PCCs felt about endless requests for money. Their Christian ethos of stewardship was severely tested and the tensions this created between PCCs and the diocese damaged relationships. The much-publicised enquiries from a minority of PCCs to sell church silver and the subsequent refusal from diocesan chancellors did not aid already strained relationships. QIs were a commendable initiative, set up to protect churches but lack of follow-up, reliance on inexperienced PCCs, shortage of funds and poor-quality repairs created more problems than anticipated. It was often the need for a new church roof that tipped a church finally into redundancy because it was unaffordable. PCCs suffered a spiral of decline, and ultimately gave up the fight to keep the churches open. Redundancy was the only option left to them. Parishioners witnessed decrepit buildings falling into further decay, although this did not necessarily provoke their concerted support to rescue them. Once a church was closed for worship, the bureaucratic processes were very slow within the dioceses and centrally with the Church Commissioners. A good percentage of redundant churches were dealt with within three years of formal redundancy proceedings in both dioceses but there were noticeable failures. In both dioceses it was very hard to find an alternative use, there were just too many people involved, any of whom could stall the process for any length of time at any stage. Consequently, the church buildings suffered. After redundancy, the buildings of outstanding architectural and historic merit were fairly quickly vested in the RCF, However, some buildings were a symbol of decay and amplified the perception of Christian decline for the wider public. Local communities were also rapidly changing during the second half of the twentieth century, which had significant ramifications for Anglican church buildings.

Notes 1. Canon Paul Hackwood is the chief executive of Toc H, and a former executive director of the Church Urban Fund. 2. Ancient churches had glebe, which was land attached to the church for the support of the priest. The freehold of the glebe was vested in the incumbent. Other payments were to enable the clergy to exercise their ministry without needing to take other jobs and were intended to provide adequate livings during their working years and into retirement (https:// www.churchofengland.org/).

112

D. BONNETTE

3. Bishop Maurice Harland (1896–1986) was a pilot in World War II. He studied at Exeter College, Oxford, and was a curate at St Peter’s church, Leicester in the early years of his career. He became bishop of Lincoln in 1947 and was translated to Durham in 1956. He was apparently a fine pastoral bishop; Bishop Kenneth Riches studied at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, where he achieved a First in theology. During the war, he had the task of guiding war-service ordinands into training for the ministry. He set up a national system for selection. 4. LA, PAR/20/2 Redbourne St Andrew, vestry minutes, 1943; LA, PAR/20/3, Wyham All Saints, vestry minutes, 1978. 5. In 1918, there were 43 parishes already in some form of plurality arrangement. 6. The Venerable Arthur Smith (1909–2001) was archdeacon, member of the General Synod, church commissioner and inspector of theological colleges. 7. A benefice may have more than one church. Appendix 5 lists the multitude of mid-twentieth-century unions, disunions and pluralities found from a range of sources. 8. PM1983 introduced the appointment of laypersons to the team. 9. In 1931, over half of Lincoln clergy (53%) were responsible for fewer than 500 people, and nearly three-quarters (74%) for fewer than 1,000 people. 10. Extracted from www.crockford.org.uk and church service registers. 11. Research reveals that having responsibility for only three churches overextends the priest and contributes to their ill health. 12. For an excellent description of church finances, see Field (2017). The Prices and Incomes Act, (c. 23, 1966) gave the government complete power to order a general freeze on all wages, prices and incomes. At the beginning of 1967, severe restrictions continued. 13. Only Hereford was lower. One shilling and three pence was the national average. 14. LA, PAR/23/2 Aubourn St Peter, Lincolnshire, letter to PCC, 15 January 1968. 15. LA, PAR/20/1 Authorpe correspondence, December 1969. Rules were based 50% on population using the local electoral register, and 50% on average parochial income over the previous five years. The population percentage was calculated as: 20% for up to 600 people, 15% between 601 and 1,200 people, 10% between 1,201 and 1,800 people and five per cent in excess of 1,800 people. The population factor for the diocese was 65,567 and its average income factor was £418,902. For example, using the formula, the total parish share for the village of Little Brumpton, with 405 people on the electoral register and an income of £455, would have been £118.

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

113

16. In 1974, there was continuing industrial decline and the Labour government introduced an incomes policy, agreed with the TUC, involving voluntary wage restraint to combat rising inflation. It was part of a social contract that the Church of England did not follow. 17. LA, PAR/10/2 Skidbrooke St Botolph, annual vestry meeting, 24 February 1974. In 1970, there were five parishes in the newly created group. 18. Also known as the quota or tribute, it is not legally enforceable. The only reference to this in legislation is in the Synodical Government Measure 1969s. 5(4), which gives Deanery Synods the power to decide how to divide the parish share within a deanery, if that is delegated to it by the Diocesan Synod. Each parish church is asked to contribute toward diocesan expenditure through this voluntary tax and each diocese uses some of the funds collected from churches to contribute to central Church of England expenditure. 19. LA, PAR/20/1/3 Owmby-by-Spital and Normanby-by-Spital, vestry minutes, 7 April 1982 and 2 July 1984. 20. CC, RC21/380 Scunthorpe St John report, 1982. 21. LA, PAR/20/4 Scunthorpe St John, letter, 29 January 1981. 22. LA, PAR/20/4 Scunthorpe St John, draft notes from the vicar, April 1982. 23. In 2014, the average giving for the Lincoln Diocese was the lowest in the country, so successive bishops had not changed attitudes in Lincolnshire. The need for better stewardship is mentioned frequently in vestry minutes. 24. ROLLR, DE7895/18 Pastoral Committee file, letter, 3 December 1981. 25. ROLLR, DE7895/18 Akeley Deanery Pastoral Committee minutes, observations on pastoral reorganisation, 20 January 1982. 26. ROLLR, DE6832 Leicester St Mark, vestry minutes, 8 April 1981. 27. ROLLR, DE8767 Belgrave St Michael, file, 1962-83. 28. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048) Box 4 Report of the Pastoral Committee, December 1975. 29. Jennings, London-based director of Save our Parsonages, believes that the sales damaged the relationship between parish and diocese. 30. Jackson reviewed the progress of team ministries and found extra layers of administration and meetings that took time away from the central task of the Church, as well as personality clashes, ambiguous relationships in the team set-up and unhelpful short contracts. 31. In the period immediately after the war, there were several sales to museums. In 1969, Authorpe (Lincs) PCC attempted to sell church silver. Nationally, 15 sales of church silver were given permission from 1971 to 2012. In 1989, the Chester Diocese sold silver from redundant churches. 32. ROLLR, DE7110/6 Edmondthorpe file, CCC report, August 1992.

114

D. BONNETTE

33. Service registers are not available. Church electoral roll of 19 in 1974 and 11 in 1981 (informal discussion with church officer). 34. In 1973, the General Synod lacked an up-to-date policy on sales of valuables and commissioned a report from the CCC, which it was believed would focus too much on conservation. Rule 9.6 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 requires consultation with the Church Buildings Council (CBC) on sales of valuables. The CBC states in ChurchCare, Guidance Note, 18 June 2014 that ‘church treasures belong in churches, and should only be removed in the most exceptional circumstances’. 35. It was pointed out that these artefacts, besides having a value in themselves, were also part of national and local history and heritage, received by that church on the express or implied understanding that, barring force majeure, it would hold and preserve the items in perpetuity. 36. LA, PAR/20/1 Lincoln St Paul, vestry minutes, 8 March 1988. 37. ROLLR, DE6849/81 Belgrave St Peter, vestry minutes, 21 February 1989 and 5 December 1989. 38. ROLLR, DE6849/81 Belgrave St Peter, vestry minutes, 11 May 1992. 39. ROLLR, DE6849/81 Belgrave St Peter, vestry minutes, 8 September 1992. 40. ROLLR, DE6849/81 Belgrave St Peter, vestry minutes, 8 December 1992. 41. A priest-in-charge took over responsibility for the church temporarily. 42. ROLLR, DE6849/81 Belgrave St Peter, vestry minutes, 3 October 1993. 43. It was on Historic England’s ‘at-risk’ register in 2019. 44. In East Lindsey, the geology is overwhelmingly chalk, which is a poor building stone but was used for church buildings in the absence of other suitable materials, especially in poorer areas. Sandstone is comparatively soft, and masonry bees have inflicted considerable damage. Churches built with ‘Tealby ironstone’ are in a poor state of repair and heavily decayed. 45. QIs were a statutory requirement introduced in 1955 through the Inspection of Churches Measure. Every Church of England church building must be inspected by an experienced architect or chartered building surveyor approved by the diocese at least every five years. Inspections are a legal obligation, but implementation of their recommendations is not. 46. PM1968, S.1(2) required the diocese to set up a fund to pay for inspections, although this could come from parochial contributions. 47. Telephone interview with retired Lincolnshire vicar, 5 January 2014. 48. CC, RC21/1 Aisthorpe St Peter vestry minutes; CC, RC21/442, Haugham All Saints vestry minutes. 49. CC, RC21/6 North Cockerington St Mary, vestry minutes. 50. CC, RC21/342 Oxcombe All Saints, vestry minutes. 51. http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/quinap/quinap.htm.

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

115

52. A good example of this was the use of concrete to repair stonework rather than lime. The former was fashionable, cheaper and thus popular with local builders, whereas liming was slow and expensive but much better for the stonework. 53. Forty-one churches were at risk in Leicestershire, including St Michael in Edmondthorpe, and by September 2021 the cost of necessary repairs to all churches was estimated at £1 billion. 54. According to English Heritage (2012), listed churches and other religious buildings are by far the most at risk, with about three in eight being damaged by crime in 2011. Metal theft from religious buildings is a particular problem. 55. The CCs were required to continue to monitor covenants, and could return to some churches years later if a problem was unearthed. 56. Does not include Market Harborough ruin. 57. Not including Castle Carlton site. 58. CC., RC21/505 Withern, letter from Lincoln Diocese Board of Finance to Church Commissioners, 4 August 1981. 59. CC, RC21/505 Withern, letter from Diocesan Board Finance, 18 November 1982. 60. CC, RC19/130 Leicester St Mark, CCC report. 61. CC, RC19/130. 62. ROLLR, DE6038 Civic Society, letter, 16 October 1993; Church Commissioners, letter, 21 Dec 1993. 63. ROLLR, DE6038 Matthew Saunders, letter, 18 April 1994.

References Archival Sources Church Commissioners (hereafter CC), RC19/118 Leicester St Leonard. CC, RC19/130 Leicester St Mark, CCC report. CC, RC21/1 Aisthorpe St Peter vestry minutes. CC, RC21/6 North Cockerington St Mary vestry minutes. CC, RC21/342 Oxcombe All Saints vestry minutes. CC, RC21/442, Haugham All Saints vestry minutes. CC, RC21/505 Letter from Lincoln Diocese Board of Finance to Church Commissioners, 4 August 1981; Withern, letter from Diocesan Board Finance, 18 November 1982. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048) Box 4 Report of the Pastoral Committee, December 1975. LA, PAR/10/2 Skidbrooke St Botolph, annual vestry meeting, 24 February 1974.

116

D. BONNETTE

LA, PAR/20/1 Authorpe St Margaret, correspondence, 1967–9. LA, PAR/20/1 Lincoln St Paul, vestry minutes, 14 January 1965. LA, PAR/20/2 Redbourne St Andrew. LA, PAR/20/1/3 Owmby-by-Spital and Normanby-by-Spital, vestry minutes, 7 April 1982 and 2 July 1984 LA, PAR/20/3 Wyham All Saints. LA, PAR/20/4 Scunthorpe St John. LA, PAR/23/2 Aubourn St Peter, Lincolnshire, letter to PCC, 15 January 1968. LA, RC21/380 Scunthorpe St John report, 1982. ROLLR, DE3812/13 Leicester All Saints, draft letter, c.1980. ROLLR, DE6038 Civic Society, letter, 16 October 1993; Church Commissioners, letter, 21 December 1993; Matthew Saunders, letter, 18 April 1994. ROLLR, DE6832 Leicester St Mark, vestry minutes, 8 April 1981. ROLLR, DE6849/81 Belgrave St Peter. ROLLR, DE7110/6 Edmondthorpe file, CCC report, August 1992. ROLLR, DE7895/18 Akeley Deanery Pastoral Committee minutes, observations on pastoral reorganisation, 20 January 1982. ROLLR, DE7895/18 Pastoral Committee file, letter, 3 December 1981. ROLLR, DE8767 Belgrave St Michael, file, 1962–83.

Published Sources Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas. 1985. Faith in the City: A Call for Action by Church and Nation. London: Church House. Archbishops’ Council. 2001. Generosity and Sacrifice: the report of the clergy stipends review group. London: Church House. Beeson, T. 2007. Round the Church in 50 Years: A Personal Journey. London: SCM. Bladen, K. 1998. ‘The gracious gift’: Church of England finances and resources. In A Church for the Twenty-First Century: The Church of England Today and Tomorrow—An Agenda for the Future, ed. R. Hannaford, 37–79. Leominster: Gracewing. Bowden, A. 2003. Ministry in the Countryside, Revised Expanded Edition: A Model for the Future. London: Bloomsbury. Centre for Rural Social Studies. 1977. East Lindsey in the 1970s. Lincoln: Centre for Rural Social Studies, Bishop Grosseteste College. Chandler, A. 2006. The Church of England in the Twentieth Century: The Church Commissioners and the Politics of Reform 1948–1998. Woodbridge: Boydell. Church Commissioners. 2014. From Anecdote to Evidence: Findings from the Church Growth Research Programme, 2011–2013.

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

117

Church of England. 1950–1988. Facts and Figures About the Church of England. London: Church of England Information Office. Church of England. 1961. Church of England Yearbook 1961. London: Church House. Church of England. 1967. Partners in Ministry: The Deployment and Payment of the Clergy. London: Church Information Office. Church of England. 1968. Pastoral Measure 1968 (1968, No. 1). Church of England. 1972. Church of England Yearbook 1972–3. London: Church House. Church of England. 1983. Pastoral Measure 1983 (1983, No. 1). Church of England. 2003. Church of England Yearbook 2002–3. London: Church House. Church Times. 1973a. Letter. Church Times, 5 January, p. 9. Church Times. 1973b. Letter. Church Times, 19 January, p. 13. Church Times. 2021. Raising money an insufficient reason to sell church’s treasure, Norwich Chancellor rules. Church Times, 16 April. Davies, D., C. Watkins, and M. Winter. 1991. Church and Religion in Rural England. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. English Heritage. 2012. Heritage Crime Research: The Size of the Problem. Swindon: English Heritage. Field, C.D. 2017. Secularisation in the Long 1960s: Numerating Religion in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flew, S. 2016. Philanthropy and the Funding of the Church of England, 1856– 1914. Abingdon: Routledge. Francis, L.J., and C.E. Brewster. 2015. Stress from time-related over-extension in multi-parish benefices. Rural Theology 10: 161–178. Francis, L.J., and D.W. Lankshear. 1992. The rural rectory: The impact of a resident priest on local church life. Journal of Rural Studies 8: 97–103. Francis, L.J., and D.W. Lankshear. 1994. Deployment of aging clergy within the Church of England. Psychological Reports 75: 366. Gill, R. 2003. The Empty Church Revisited. Aldershot: Ashgate. Green, S.D.J. 1996. Religion in the Age of Decline: Organisation and Experience in Industrial Yorkshire, 1870–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimsby Evening Telegraph. 1982. Scrooge rap on church aid. Grimsby Evening Telegraph, 17 April. Hackwood, Canon Paul. 2022. Church faces a stark choice for the future. Church Times, 7 January. Hansard. 1955. Inspection of Churches Measure, House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 24 February. Hansard 191, cols. 453–457. House of Bishops. 1974. The Deployment of the Clergy: report of the House of Bishops working party. London: Church House.

118

D. BONNETTE

Jackson, B. 2005. The Road to Growth: Towards a Thriving Church. London: Church House. Jennings, A. 2006. The old rectory: The Church of England’s sale of its parsonages. Rural Theology 4: 111–121. Jennings, A. 2009. Old Rectory: The Story of the English Parsonage. London: Continuum. Laurence, C. 1999. Kenneth Riches: Caring bishop who took his clergy to Butlins. The Guardian, 27 May, p. 24. Leicester Mercury. 1993a. Save church. Leicester Mercury, 23 July. Leicester Mercury. 1993b. Looking for a chance to save city church. Leicester Mercury, 29 September. Leicester Mercury. 1997. Church owner is facing bill shock. Leicester Mercury, 21 March. Leicester Mercury. 1998. Prescott to decide on fate of church. Leicester Mercury, 11 December. Leicester Mercury. 2003. Project frustrated. Leicester Mercury, 7 November. Leicester Mercury. 2005. Church is saved at last. Leicester Mercury, 17 June. Leicester Mercury. 2021. Heritage crime. Leicester Mercury, 14 March. Lincoln Diocese. 1968. Into Tomorrow: A Report on the Pastoral ReOrganisation. Lincoln: Lincoln Diocese. Lincoln Diocese. 1972. Lincoln Diocesan Magazine, no. 432. Lincoln: Lincoln Diocese. Lincoln Diocese. 1982. Yearbook and Directory. Lincoln: Lincoln Diocese. Lincoln Diocese Pastoral Committee. 1950. No Secret Plan. Lincoln: Lincoln Diocese. Lincoln Diocesan Trust and Board of Finance. Published annually. Diocesan ‘Red Book’. Lincoln: Lincoln Diocesan Trust. Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust. 1978. Annual Report. Lincoln: Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust. Lincolnshire Standard. 1991. In a mess over church changes. Lincolnshire Standard, 26 July. Lloyd, R. 1966. The Church of England 1900–1965. London: SCM Press. Manchester Guardian. 1952. The rector drives a bus. The Manchester Guardian, 29 January, p. 5. Morris, J. N. 1992. Religion and Urban Change: Croydon, 1840–1914. Woodbridge: Boydell. Neville, G. 1989. Churches and religious life. In Twentieth Century Lincolnshire, ed. D. Mills, 282–318. Lincoln: History of Lincolnshire Committee. Paul, L.A. 1964. The Deployment and Payment of the Clergy: A Report. London: Church Information Office for the Central Advisory Council for the Ministry. Percy, M. 2006. Clergy: The Origin of Species. London: Continuum.

3

THE CHURCH AS AN INSTITUTION—FINANCE, MINISTRY, …

119

Petchley, P. 2018. Hidden treasure: The Church of England’s stewardship of its silver plate. Ecclesiastical Law Journal 2: 16–50. Ranson, S., A. Bryman, and B. Hinings. 1977. Clergy, Ministers and Priests. London: Routledge. Russell, A. 1986. The Country Parish. London: SPCK. Smith, A.C. 1960. The South Ormsby Experiment: An Adventure in Friendship. London: SPCK. The Times. 1955. Expert inspection of churches. The Times, 9 May, p. 5. The Times. 1986. Obituary: Bishop Maurice Harland. The Times, 1 October, p. 18. The Times. 1993. Back to the tithe. The Times, 23 July, p. 17. The Times. 2001. The Ven Arthur Smith. The Times, 19 June, p. 17. Tiller, J. 1983. A Strategy for the Church’s Ministry. London: CIO. Vaughan. P. H. 1987. Non-stipendiary Ministry in the Church of England: A History of the Development of an Idea. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nottingham. Wasdell, D. 1974. Let my people grow! Urban Church Project Working Paper 1. Wilding, R. 1990. The Care of Redundant Churches: A Review of the Operation and Financing of the Redundant Churches Fund. London: Stationery Office Books. Wilson, M. 2011. The country church through the 1980s and 1990s: A personal reflection. Rural Theology 9: 143–150. Yeo, S. 1976. Religion and Voluntary Organisations in Crisis. London: Croom Helm.

CHAPTER 4

Community: Cultural and Demographic Change, Reaction and Response

Hoten St Leonard in Leicestershire was faced with redundancy in 1987: it was in urgent need of repair, suffering from wet and dry rot, and the lychgate was falling down. Despite an appeal for financial help, nothing was forthcoming from the parishioners, making redundancy inevitable. Vicar, Leslie Robinson described the bleak situation once the recommended redundancy had been made public (The Guardian 1990). A riot by non-churchgoing villagers protesting against closure took place in the churchyard, and at a public meeting: The church was packed to the doors. Talk about hearing the Speaker shouting ‘Order! Order!’ in Parliament. It was all I could do to stop another riot. When the poor registrar of the diocese asked for questions, they all surged forward and, honestly, I thought they were going to lynch him. (The Guardian 1990)

He summed up the experience: With few exceptions, the modern suburbanites who have moved into this prosperous community put nothing into village life, take no interest in the village affairs, and regard the plight of church buildings as absolutely nothing to do with them, until things have got so bad as to be beyond help. (The Guardian 1990) © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_4

121

122

D. BONNETTE

The church was eventually made redundant in 1989 and became a residential property. During the conflict surrounding the closure, most Hoten parishioners were not concerned with matters of religion or belonging and did not attend or support the church. They attached greater value and meaning to the building as a prominent feature of their local rural landscape and part of the village identity. Historically, parish churches were valued because of the strong sense of attachment, engendered through settlement law, which gave people legal rights to welfare, a sense of identity and a place within a specific community. The churches were used for family rites of passage and parishioners communicated their sense of belonging through their attendance and support. Most parishes were co-extensive for civil and ecclesiastical matters but the creation of county councils in 1888 and parish councils in 1894, created new units of local government. Rod Ambler believes the 1894 Act was ‘in effect a local disestablishment of the Church of England—more significant in Lincolnshire because of its large number of rural parishes’ (Ambler 2000). The new councils affected the nature of community and belonging which disrupted relatively clear-cut, integrated units of local attachment, in which lay affairs had a spiritual overlay and shared personnel, in which economic relations had also to be defined as moral ones. They complicated and confused ideas of parish belonging. (Snell 2009, p. 370)

Modernising forces and twentieth-century cultural shifts, such as changes to work, family structures, car use and migration trends have had a significant effect on local attachment, place-defined community and ultimately the parish church. Between 1968 and 2000, over 1500 Anglican churches were made redundant, some 50% were converted to non-community related buildings and over 20% demolished. Redundancy implies something that is no longer wanted, needed or valued, something surplus to requirements. What has created the historical circumstances for church property to be re-evaluated in local life and redesigned for secular use or lost forever? The most frequently cited reason for making a church redundant nationally between 1968 and 2000 was the small size of the parish and/or congregation (56.1%). In the Lincoln Diocese, this was significantly higher at 72.8%. Population shift away from the area was broadly

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

123

similar to national percentages (20.3%), and remoteness was a key indicator (45.7%). The Leicester Diocese also cited small parishes and/or congregations (68.4%) as the most significant factor (mainly for its city churches), higher than national figures. This was followed by population shift away from the area (47.3%). The percentages linked to population size and shift are significant, particularly in the two study regions. The previous chapter explored the context within which the Church of England operated, the strategies it adopted and the implications for individual congregations. This chapter adds to the narrative by considering how demographic forces in the twentieth century have contributed to a rising number of redundant churches. For, according to Robert Currie, Alan Gilbert and Lee Horsley (1977, p. 54): A church recruits from its constituency; and since that constituency responds to demographic forces at work in the population as a whole, each church is influenced by those forces almost as much as if its membership were coterminous with the total population.

Thus, twentieth-century migration trends and changes to parish size for both study regions are examined to assess how far demographic forces contributed to the redundancy of parish churches. It has been argued that since the late 1970s, ‘disparate urban initiatives have been developed in a random and ad hoc manner, with little recourse to strategic or longer-term thinking’ (Shaw and Robinson 1998, p. 50). This was imposed on ‘unwilling or unaware’ communities and was ‘often destructive’. Diocesan strategies have also been heavily criticised for lacking a long-term approach (Chapter 3) and this chapter examines how both secular and ecclesiastical policy to deal with population flow affected parish churches. The socio-cultural changes caused by migration trends are significant, since they influenced the responses of the local community towards the parish church. Were churches valued as important symbols of community identity to those who lived within the boundaries of a parish, or had they become part of a nostalgic image? Did parishioners (who were entitled to contribute to the decisions about the future of the church building) defend the closing of the church, regret its loss or were they indifferent to its future? Was there a contrast in attitude between the Anglican community of worshippers and local non-attenders, especially when alternative secular use of a redundant building was proposed? Were there differences between urban and rural areas and across the two

124

D. BONNETTE

regions? The following section begins by examining the effect of change in the urban parishes of Leicester.

Urban Change In the 1920s and 1930s, Leicester City Council engaged in largescale building of council houses around the outskirts of the city to replace cheaply built terraced houses deemed unfit for human habitation. Leicester largely escaped heavy bombing during the war, apart from an attack on St George’s area, and after 1948, housing demolition continued. However, clearance did not proceed at an even pace, and in the 1960s, within half a mile of the city-centre clock tower, where houses had been demolished, ‘strangers to the city sometimes supposed that it must have suffered severely from air-raids and that damage was slow to be repaired’ (Simmons 1974, p. 127). Around 13,000 council houses were built between 1951 and 1961, enabling 23,000 people to leave the city centre (Beazley 2011). From 1955, most of the Leicester’s Wharf Street area began to be demolished and the land was set aside for industrial development. Around 1,500 people left this area, and Humberstone Road was widened for increasing car use. By 1962, 3,500 properties had been demolished and the nearby new St Matthew’s estate was fully occupied. In the 1960s, too, a vision for complicated new road systems and an urban motorway in Leicester to keep cars out of the city led to further local housing demolition and ruptured the city centre’s medieval pattern. The scale of demolitions affected its churches. In 1939, a large part of St Margaret’s parish, which in 1900 had a population of over 92,000, was cleared for a bus station and a municipal car park. Hardly any homes remained ‘compared with the thousands which clung in narrow rows’ (Leicester Evening Mail 1956). This left medieval St Margaret’s church with few worshippers and facing a fight for survival. Simmons (1974) noted the unwelcoming gyratory system established at St Nicholas’ Circle later in the 1970s, which isolated medieval St Nicholas church. He complained that ‘we have a huge swathe of concrete, taking traffic through the city north and south, with windy and desolate stretches of concrete again, on either side of it’ (p. 86). Medieval All Saints church was similarly isolated by a new road system that broke the continuity of historic High Cross Street and split the parish. Leicester then entered a period of de-industrialisation between 1970 and 1980 and the type of people living in the city altered. In 1978, over 70% of housing in central

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

125

Leicester was rented and over 60% comprised of households of one or two people. The elderly population was higher than average, and the proportion of under-25s was also large. The population flow created huge challenges for the diocese, which wanted to continue to provide mission in Leicester and ‘cure of souls’ in the new areas. In the early 1940s, average Sunday attendance at most city churches was below 50 and declining, despite having a large seating capacity. Meanwhile, the diocese appealed for public subscriptions of £75,000 to help build churches on the new housing estates (Leicester Evening Mail 1938). Nineteenth-century St Luke’s church was closed in 1941 and the congregation united with St Matthew and St George, two other nineteenth-century churches. The future of St John (nineteenth century) and All Saints, which in 1940 had an average attendance of just nine, was also in doubt. Christchurch, a nineteenth-century church serving the Wharf Street clearance area was made redundant in 1954 and no-one objected to its closure and demolition. All Saints was reprieved from redundancy, and parishioners’ petitions saved St John. St Matthew, which could seat over 1,250 people and was dubbed the ‘poor man’s cathedral’, was not under threat at this point. It was also situated in the middle of the Wharf Street clearances and had managed a regular attendance of around 70 since the early 1950s. In 1956, the Leicester Mercury asked what must be done to save St Margaret’s church, which had been threatened with closure: ‘slums come down; the people move out to the new estates. But the parish church stays behind’ (Leicester Mercury 1956). It was anticipated that a further 5,000 people would be living on the new St Matthew’s estate by 1968, many of whom were expected to attend the church. Table 4.1 shows the drastic reductions in the city parishes’ populations between 1940 and 1982. In 1940, there were church seats for around 16% of the population of the city and by 1970, over 50% of the population could have been seated. There were clearly too many Anglican churches in the city. However, not all churches that lost their local populations suffered the same decline. The area around Anglo-Catholic St Andrew’s, (which could seat 600) lost over 3,000 people, where previously three generations had lived together in the same house. Reverend Bernard Badger conducted a tireless campaign of visiting those who ‘more or less supported the church’. He asked parishioners to gift a certain amount each week and managed to grow his congregation, much to the amazement of the local

126

D. BONNETTE

Table 4.1 Population in Leicester city parishes, 1940–1982 Church (seating)

Made redundant All Saints (700) All Souls (600) St. Mark (900) St Matthew (1250) St George (800) St John (900) St Leonard (460) Kept open St Mary (800) St Margaret (1000) St Nicholas (350) Holy Trinity (1200) St Andrew (600)

Population

% drop 1940–1982

1940

1963

1971

1982

4,306 3,289 10,500 8,944 2,271 2,461 12,000

1,541 3,006 8,167 10,987 2,029 1,760 1,968

150 500 5,852 6,000 457 586 1,442

30 1,050 5,852 5,454 457 No info 150*

99.3 68.1 44.3 39.0 79.9

2,922 2,000 1,000 4,190 6,824

1,955 1,401 855 2,658 5,389

632 200 20 1,200 2,000

632 150* 12 900 2,000

78.4 92.5 98.8 78.5 70.7

98.8

*St Leonard and St Margaret combined. Source Extracted from Leicester Diocesan Directory 1940, 1963, 1978 and 1982; Bishop’s Commission, Inner Leicester

press (Leicester Chronicle 1959). Whether this could have been replicated by other churches is doubtful because of a much-diminished pool of prospective churchgoers. The significant changes to the city, coupled with manpower issues forced the Leicester Diocese to decide how to target its resources more effectively. At the time, it was not thought that people would return to live in the city, and evangelical mission and finances focused on the housing estates being built on Leicester’s periphery. Thus, it was decided that six new churches should be built. A further public appeal was launched for financial contributions, and most of these churches were constructed in the late 1950s and the 1960s. Restricted finances led to the building of dual-purpose worship and church halls, such as those at Stocking Farm and Eyres Monsell (The Illustrated Chronicle 1957). Other Christian denominations were also opening additional places of worship on the new estates. The Catholic Church had begun to build three churches, and planned four more for the new areas of Braunstone, New Parks, Goodwood and Thurnby Lodge. Three new Methodist churches were planned, and a new Congregational church in Evington. The estates on the periphery were well endowed with places of

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

127

worship by the end of the 1960s, while city churches were struggling for congregations. St George in the Wharf Street area was the church most affected by the sweeping changes during the late 1950s. Figure 4.1a and Fig. 4.1b illustrate the radical changes to the geographical context around St George, which brought about its redundancy. There used to be hundreds of houses in tight rows surrounding the church but after clearances, the church was isolated in an area of developing light industry and retail. By 1960, St George’s three Sunday services together attracted approximately 115 people, almost the whole of the electoral roll. Only eight resided in the parish itself, indicating that former parishioners were continuing to attend the church.1 By 1966, after the diocese proposed uniting St George with St Matthew, the electoral roll was 105, the average Sunday attendance was 46 and the church building was facing an uncertain future. During the next three years, the roll fell to 50 in 1968, 35 in 1969 and 31 in 1970.2 In a letter to the Leicester Diocese, the parochial church council (PCC) stated that it was ‘greatly concerned during the last five years in particular that we are unable to find a mission to the community and that we are virtually just serving ourselves’.3 The diocese agreed and identified St George for redundancy, proposing the redundant building as a diocesan headquarters.4 In his final sermon, the vicar highlighted the church’s problem: ‘Downtown churches are no good to us—there is no outreach. It just becomes a place for a Sunday holy huddle’ (Leicester Mercury 1969). Few people on the PCC were sentimental about the church building, and most had acted in as Christian a manner as possible in suggesting redundancy. Nevertheless, some members of the congregation and the wider public who did not attend the church disagreed and complained in the local newspapers. Many considered that St George should be kept open because of its historical importance, instead of St Matthew. By 1972, St George had been leased to the Greek Orthodox Church, where over 300 people attended the Good Friday service (Leicester Mercury 1972). A Christian presence, albeit not an Anglican one, resumed, drawn from a wide geographical area. The city continued to change, and the diocese examined the electoral rolls of each church to determine which might be closed in the future. No-one on the roll at St Margaret or St Nicholas lived in the parish, emphasising the effect of various inner-city housing changes, but St Margaret’s appeared to be maintaining a regular congregation

128

D. BONNETTE

a

Fig. 4.1 (a) Area surrounding Leicester St George, c. 1910 (b) Area surrounding Leicester St George, c. 1980 (Source Created by Dr Richard Jones)

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

129

b

Fig. 4.1 (continued)

of 50.5 Hence, some people were willing to travel to the city-centre church, perhaps owing to historical and family connections and important social networks which went beyond parish boundaries. Holy Trinity, St Margaret and St Nicholas had the largest rolls. Holy Trinity was the only city church with evangelical churchmanship and was in an area close to the university. While isolated by the new road systems, both St Margaret

130

D. BONNETTE

and St Nicholas were ancient and more architecturally attractive buildings. St Leonard did not follow the electoral roll pattern of other churches in the city since it comprised more parish residents than non-residents. By the end of the 1970s, Leicester St George, All Saints and St John had closed for worship, affected by housing changes and new road systems. St Matthew, All Souls, St Leonard, Belgrave St Michael, St Mark and Aylestone St James closed in the 1980s, mainly due to diminished populations, already low attendance and the financial difficulties they faced. There were early protests at closure from parishioners at St John, a small number of objections from those near to St Leonard and thin support from parishioners at the other churches. Only All Saints was not a nineteenth-century building. What is noteworthy is that by 1987, attendance figures for the churches built on the new estates were not high, although higher than the city churches made redundant in the mid1980s. For example, St Hugh (built in 1958) had an average Sunday attendance of 42, St Aiden (built in 1959) 40 and St Christopher (built in 1968) 59. The Lincoln Diocese also had to deal with changes to its city’s population. In Lincoln, by 1927, two city churches had been made redundant. St Peter at Arches and St Benedict (not used since 1854) were both closed to create better traffic facilities. Lincoln city also experienced housing clearance in the 1960s, and newest council housing was on the southern fringe in Birchwood.6 The city’s population only began to alter in the early 1970s, when a change in planning policy allowed the construction of many private housing estates. The Lincoln Diocese adopted a rationalisation approach like Leicester for its city churches. The general conclusion to the 1958 Commission on the Parish and Churches of Lincoln was that, if the Church was to fulfil its pastoral duties to those in the new districts, some old churches in the centre must close because of financial and manpower issues.7 Three churches in areas of declining population were identified for closure and demolition (St Paul, St Mark and St Andrew) and unions of other city parishes proposed (Lincoln Diocesan Pastoral Reorganisation Committee 1958, p. 16). Between the 1960s and 1980s, the diocese made two of these (not St Andrew) and a further two redundant (St Michael and St Martin). Like Leicester, the diocese was concentrating on its Christian mission, and supported the building of new churches on outlying estates for people displaced by housing clearance. The congregation of St Martin was particularly exercised by potential redundancy after heated and prolonged discussions (see below), while eight out of 11 of the

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

131

PCC at St Paul took a realistic view and voted in favour of closure of their ‘beloved building’.8 Only 47 people out of a parish population of over 600 attended a public meeting about the closure, although a comment was made that the ‘parish now felt lost … there was no rector to knock on the door’ (Lincolnshire Echo 1965). Both dioceses suffered from radical urban change and responded by closing nineteenth-century churches that had been built to cope with a formerly rapidly rising population. These churches had low and declining attendance figures. New churches were built on the periphery of the cities, but these did not necessarily attract large numbers. Congregations in the city did cross parish boundaries to worship at other churches for reasons of churchmanship, habit or the pull of historic medieval buildings, although this was not sustainable in the long term. The rural churches also suffered from the effects of depopulation and the pull of in-migration, which changed villages socially and culturally.

Rural Change Many rural areas in England suffered from depopulation through the early twentieth century because of declining employment opportunities and rural social hardship. As a result of increased mechanisation, the number of hired workers fell further than the number of farmers as their jobs became redundant. Young, economically active people and farmers’ and labourers’ families began to be replaced by the retired and near retired. Household size declined, and property amalgamation or replacement became more common. Second homes were a developing feature of rural areas, as was a relative rise in the middle-class ‘incomer’. Towards the end of the twentieth century, rural depopulation appeared to be an aspect of the past. However, the East Midlands experienced a much longer and more widespread population decline at a parish level than in other areas of England (Weekley 1988, p. 134). Lincolnshire had the greatest number of parishes of under 1,000 people in the East Midlands, and between 1971 and 1981, 48% of these experienced depopulation (p. 129). West Lindsey, which was more accessible, suffered a 54% reduction in its parishes under 1,000, while in East Lindsey it was 44%. In Leicestershire, 45% of parishes of under 1,000 people suffered depopulation between 1971 and 1981, which was less than Lincolnshire but still a challenge. Smaller parishes in both counties were the worst affected by population loss and between

132

D. BONNETTE

1971 and 1981, the number of parishes of under 250 people rose by 25% in Leicestershire and 30% in Lincolnshire. Depopulation was compounded by restrictive housing policies applied to most small villages, allowing only limited growth, which often resulted in villages being preserved rather than becoming dynamic communities. A combination of gentrification and ageing, leading to falling household size and diminishing housing stock meant that smaller parishes were often worst affected. In Lincolnshire, fewer than four per cent of parishes with populations of under 1,000 made provisions for new residential development (Weekley 1988; Lindsey County Council 1969). Around 55% were classed as ‘minor’ villages, which permitted only single or small groups of dwellings within the village curtilage, and in other villages, new residential development was restricted to individual dwellings. Sally Scott (1989) provides additional evidence for Lincolnshire villages safeguarded from development by council planning policies. Planners also had to contend with the Lincolnshire Wolds’ status as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which brought numerous rules protecting the area from further building. It also may have attracted fewer commuters in the 1980s because of the distance from larger towns (Davies et al. 1991, p. 214). Wildsworth’s parishioners felt the impact of rigid planning policies when its population declined by over 50% in the 1970s. The attitude of rural planners acting for local government and the estate has been, up to now, that Wildsworth is a decayed settlement that had better decay altogether, mulch down into the ground, so to speak.9

Its church (Fig. 4.2), which closed informally in 1973 was not going to attract a congregation from a much-reduced population, thus it was demolished by 1985. The high number of artificially small parishes partly accounts for the disproportionate number of church redundancy schemes for Lincolnshire. In the early 1980s (where information is available), almost 81% of redundant churches in Lincolnshire were in villages with populations under 250, 54% of which were under 100. Only eight per cent were in settlements of between 1,000 and 5,000. In East Lindsey, at least 13 parishes where there were redundant churches lost over 30% of their populations between 1951 and 1991. Some parish populations fluctuated, but very few grew to any reasonable size. Waddingworth lost over 90% of its population and its church was not used after the early 1960s. By 1975, only

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

133

Fig. 4.2 Wildsworth church exterior, c. 1981 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

three families lived in the parish. By contrast, the population of Maltby Le Marsh increased by 122 between 1951 and 1991. However, population increase did not always save the parish church. Despite a tripling of Maltby-le-Marsh’s population, when church redundancy was discussed in 1992, parish church attendance was still in single figures and the church closed. A combination of declining village populations and the 1944 Education Act also led to school closures in Lincolnshire, which had an adverse effect on parish churches. Church schools were associated with signs of greater church vitality than in comparable parishes without them (Francis and Lankshear 1990). The 1944 Act allocated senior children from allage local village primary schools to new, purpose-built secondary schools in a few major centres (UK Government 1944). Between 1948 and 1974, 124 Lincolnshire schools closed: 19 in Holland, 37 in Kesteven and 68 in Lindsey (Lincolnshire Education Committee 1978). Further reorganisation in the late 1960s resulted in 40 more schools in Lindsey and 21 in Kesteven closing suddenly and simultaneously (Lincolnshire Education

134

D. BONNETTE

Committee 1970). In East Lindsey, where most redundant churches were situated, nearly three quarters of the 61 village schools that were closed between 1945 and 1990 were Church of England schools, although they did not necessarily close at the same time as the churches. Nevertheless, churches in very small villages were especially at risk if they lost their church schools as there were fewer children to nurture as a prospective congregation. Although Leicestershire had a similar population decline in parishes of under 250, fewer churches were made redundant in very small parishes. Eleven redundant churches were mainly situated on the borders between other counties in the East Midlands, five chapels of ease and six parish churches. Five had a parish population of under 50 and six of between 80 and 110. Most of the churches were closed later than those in Lincolnshire, after a period of population decline. Brentingby had not been used since 1958 and the other churches had attendance figures of below 10. Beeby, Garthorpe, Nevill Holt, Stapleford and Withcote were deemed surplus to requirements by the diocese because there were larger churches nearby. Allexton, Edmondthorpe, Hoten, Stretton-en-le-Field and Willesley also required significant repair, which for them was a tipping point into closure. Nine of the churches were of outstanding quality and were eventually vested in the Redundant Churches Fund (RCF), while Hoten and Willesley were sold.10 The two dioceses had similar challenges created by the depopulation of rural areas but had differing social contexts in their very small parishes. The parishes in the Leicester Diocese were far less remote than those in Lincoln, tended to be wealthier and generally more middle class. Many were linked to former rural estates and there were stronger supportive churches not too far away, with which they could be grouped. The diocesan strategies and policies to deal with population challenges and socio-cultural change were also different.

Responding to Socio-Cultural Change The Leicester Diocese had identified the need to rationalise its city churches in 1970 and published a report recommending the closure and demolition of four city churches: St John, St Andrew, St Matthew and St Leonard (Bishop’s Commission 1970). However, the city was changing more radically and rapidly than anticipated, especially in Belgrave where there was a growing number of non-Christian groups. Yet, the Leicester Diocese spent ten years, from 1972 to 1982, deliberating on the most

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

135

suitable pastoral plan for the Belgrave area.11 Five large nineteenthcentury churches were quite close to each other, congregations were small and the old parish boundaries were no longer recognisable (Fig. 4.3). Following internal diocesan debates, early in 1976 the rural dean called a public meeting to discuss reorganisation of the proposed Christianity Deanery, which included Belgrave. The diocese’s initial suggestion was that St Mark, St Alban and St Matthew should be amalgamated to form a single parish sharing a joint ministry, and that St Michael and All Angels should be closed, and the congregation divided between St Peter and St Gabriel.12 The diocese had no qualms about suggesting the congregations’ dispersal because it felt that there were plenty of alternative churches nearby. It thus failed to understand the nature of Belgrave’s Christian communities and their

Fig. 4.3 Parishes of Belgrave, Leicester (Source ROLLR, DE6832, Leicester St Mark’s redundancy papers; Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

136

D. BONNETTE

loyalty to individual churches. The diocese also believed that a community’s Christian presence need not take the form of a costly, traditional church building, but might be a church centre or hall, like the new, nonChristian places of worship. The congregations were unimpressed by the proposed reorganisation and potential sale of church buildings. St Mark’s PCC believed that the Asian community that had settled in Belgrave was largely professional and therefore would not stay. It suggested that ‘the old type house will be good for another ten years and the immigrants may move out of these houses—going further afield, leaving these houses for the young white families to move into’.13 This view was later echoed by St Michael’s PCC, who believed that the immigrants would move to larger properties in Rushey Mead and further afield.14 However, by 1979, having admitted that the church congregation would not grow, the PCC offered to sell the church building and use the funds to build a smaller one nearby.15 This suggestion was turned down by the diocesan officers who, from their strategic position, proposed a small building on St Matthew’s estate when the current church was demolished. The final diocesan plan, which proposed making St Michael a multi-purpose building, would leave a minimal Anglican presence along the Belgrave Road. In response, an angry St Michael’s PCC agreed a motion to ‘disassociate’ with the scheme.17 There followed a long period of indecision by the diocese, with changes to officers and mistakes in public communications. The diocese was also grappling with how to provide ‘cure of souls’ in newer areas of the city and target resources at the Anglican community rather than specific parishes. Every mishap in the bureaucratic decision-making process affected the congregations’ general morale. St Mark’s was presented with at least four different proposals for the church’s future, raising hopes that it would be saved and then dashing them again with proposed closure.18 The diocese claimed that these had been provisional plans, but again failed to appreciate the effect of constant changes. In a joint meeting of the threatened churches, the congregations said that ‘if this matter is shelved yet again, there may well come a time when no active church is left in this part of Leicester either to ponder or to pray’.19 After much debate, the Parish of Resurrection was finally created from the church merger, with a proposed team ministry at St Alban’s church, led by the vicar of St Matthew’s, Reverend Kenneth Middleton (leader of the Labour Council).20 Middleton was not a universally popular choice, and the other incumbents complained that they would lose their autonomy in

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

137

a team arrangement. However, in 1982, before he could properly take up the post, Middleton left Leicester to take up a role elsewhere. Rationalisation eventually led to the closure of eight Leicester city churches and two in greater Leicester between 1969 and 1988. They suffered differing fates and levels of attention. In the Belgrave area, a small worship centre was eventually created in Belgrave St Michael and All Angels, and the rest of the building was converted into flats. Over time, the worship centre also closed, and in 1993 the building became an Asian radio station. St Mark’s historic interior stood derelict for over 25 years, overrun by pigeons and a potent symbol of Christian decline. St Matthew, built by George Gilbert Scott, was demolished as planned by the diocese, 18 years after it was identified for closure. It was replaced by a worship centre in a former public house on the housing estate. Providing a ‘cure of souls’ in a dramatically changed religious and cultural context had been very challenging for the diocese but the response was very slow, leaving congregations unsure of their future. In the Lincoln Diocese, the challenge was greater in the rural areas. As early as 1968, Kenneth Riches, bishop of Lincoln, struggling with fewer clergy and the burden of maintaining buildings, identified that any church in a rural settlement of under 100 people was at risk of redundancy in Into Tomorrow (Lincoln Diocese 1968; Archbishops’ Commission 1960). He saw the issue as ‘not how many buildings can be kept open, but how best to produce lively dedicated Christian communities’ (Lincoln Diocese 1968, p. 32). He listed churches where living Christian communities could be built up for worship and witness, churches that could be maintained for occasional services without any very heavy financial burden and those no longer required for worship that could be made redundant. Of the 164 potential redundancies, 121 had parish populations of under 100, with 39 under 50, prompting a complaint from Country Life (1970) that ‘remoteness and tiny congregations spell defeat to statistically minded pastoral planners’. Almost three quarters of all churches on Riches’ list were in East and West Lindsey. This was partly because not all deaneries submitted church names, but mainly because these were the areas where there were many tiny, often remote churches. Additional challenges included ongoing maintenance issues, accessibility and parking difficulties. By 2000, only a third of churches in villages of under 100 on the list had closed. The diocesan strategy of grouping vulnerable churches

138

D. BONNETTE

with stronger ones helped to avoid closures and thus, declining populations and reduced services did not necessarily result in redundancy. The churches’ historical significance also protected them and in some very small villages, medieval buildings were kept open, while less interesting nineteenth-century buildings on the lists were made redundant. For instance, parishes such as Coates with a population of 10, Hagnaby with a population of 21 and Haugh with a population of 12 kept their renowned churches open, although services became monthly (Lincoln Diocese 1966). Coates has Lincolnshire’s only surviving rood loft. Haugh was supported by the National Churches Trust and other ‘friend’s groups’ were established over time to help raise funds to keep churches open, although members did not necessarily attend services or live in the parish. Occasionally, proximity to a large house, hall or great estate ensured that a church could continue to offer services, despite low attendance. Although the two dioceses recognised the need to rationalise the number of churches, their strategies to combat the challenges of population and socio-cultural change were not long term, and formal processes did not allow a response that was quick or flexible. They also needed to take account of the response of the communities in which the churches stood.

Community Response to Church Redundancy Between 1968 and 2000, only 21.5% of church redundancies nationally resulted from decisions taken by PCCs. In the Leicester Diocese, it was a broadly similar figure (20.8%) and in the Lincoln Diocese, was much lower, at 13.8%. This indicates that most redundancies were instigated by dioceses as part of radical pastoral reorganisation. The clergy did not necessarily agree with the drive to close some churches in order to provide a renewed mission to newer areas, especially if they were required to lead the process locally. Many believed that each parish should have its own church, and that parish churches were crucial to maintaining the Church of England (Davies et al. 1991, p. 186). Prior to the new processes of PM1968, the congregation of Lincoln St Martin’s was clearly unhappy when redundancy of its church was proposed. The church seated 1,000 but had a regular congregation of 40, and in 1964 it was due to be separated from its parish by a proposed 50-foot-wide dual carriageway (Lincolnshire Chronicle 1964c). A former churchwarden had alluded to the church suffering from ‘tragedy after tragedy’. The Lincolnshire Echo (1963) reported the ‘death knell of

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

139

Lincoln church’, since the diocese now wanted to close and demolish St Martin (Fig. 4.4). In the face of impending closure and possible demolition, two PCC members, George Dean and Miss Winifred Mowberry, stood outside the church, armed with stamped addressed envelopes in which people could send protests to the Church Commissioners. They gathered a sizeable petition with 1,289 signatures, but Bishop Riches was unimpressed, accusing the PCC of having ‘brought the whole Christian community into disrepute and gravely hampered any attempt at evangelism’

Fig. 4.4 Lincoln St Martin, c. 1968 (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology)

140

D. BONNETTE

(Lincolnshire Echo 1964b). He wanted to deploy resources towards the ‘cure of souls’ in new areas around the city. The newspapers, enjoying the developing battle between parishioners and diocese, headlined with ‘Save menaced Lincoln church’ and ‘War declared in bid to stop shutdown’ (Lincolnshire Echo 1964a; Lincolnshire Chronicle 1964a). They reported Miss Mowberry claiming stoutly that ‘we are determined to fight to the bitter end, even if we have to die fighting’ (Lincolnshire Chronicle 1964b). The case was reported frequently in local newspapers, but despite pleas to the Privy Council, the PCC lost its case and the building was scheduled for demolition. In his affidavit, Riches stated that ‘a worshipper at St Martin’s might well be overawed by the atmosphere of a large, cold and not very inspired Victorian Gothic church’ in a parish ‘where most objectors didn’t live’ (Lincolnshire Echo 1968). The Church of England’s ecclesiastical structures outranked parochial concerns. More worryingly, perhaps, they also caused a community standoff, although over time, protests against church closure did not provoke such an impassioned response. Analysis of objections to closure under PM1968 does not necessarily support the view that parish churches were crucial as places of worship. PM1968 required the Church Commissioners to publish details of each scheme in local newspapers, and to record objections.21 In Lincoln, of the churches that closed under this measure, objections were received by the Church Commissioners only for the rural churches of Broxholme, Driby, Redbourne and Wyham, and for the city church Scunthorpe St John. At Redbourne St Andrew, 172 of the 375 parishioners petitioned (unsuccessfully) to prevent redundancy.22 The very low number of objections overall suggests that few people were concerned that their local church would no longer be open for religious worship, and people in the Lincoln Diocese appeared ready to accept church redundancy. In some cases there were too few people in a parish to object or it might simply have reflected the existing situation, as the diocese had already had significantly more redundant churches than other dioceses (Davis et al., p. 189: twenty-four per cent of respondents in Gloucester accepted closure, compared with 40% in Lincoln). The Lincoln Diocese was accused of making decisions prior to any consultation, and there is evidence that objectors were persuaded by the bishop to withdraw their protests before formal reporting. One objection to the closure of Amber Hill was from a local Methodist, who was more concerned that the vicar would no longer be available to preach at the joint services they had established. She also asked what the holiday

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

141

cottage owners would do if there was no lovely carol service for visitors to attend.23 Another objector did not want his own local church made redundant like the depressing closed church nearby. In the Leicester Diocese, there were formal objections to closure for seven city churches. The congregation at All Souls, St Mark, St Leonard and St John did not wish to be forced to worship at a church elsewhere, especially if this would necessitate travelling across the city. St John and St Leonard unsuccessfully used the pastoral measure procedures to appeal to the Privy Council, which ruled against the objectors. Objections to the closures of St George, Belgrave St Michael and St Matthew were mixed, and some were from non-attenders with a historical attachment to the churches. However, the congregations were witnessing disappearing communities and wanted to keep smaller worship centres in their localities to slow the shrinking Christian presence. When nineteenth-century St Matthew was finally scheduled for demolition, Leicester Mercury’s (1982) headline was ‘Happy to see their church go’. The church was to be replaced with a modern, landscaped church centre and flats. Margaret Stapleton, a former churchwarden, had wanted this ‘for a considerable time. The church is too big and no longer practical to run. We pour money in, but we just cannot keep up’ Leicester Mercury (1982). This was a pragmatic response, occasioned by the promise of a new church centre, but such attitudes were not often publicly articulated. The congregation of St Leonard was not as welcoming to closure as that of St George. Although it was a nineteenth-century building, St Leonard was on the historic site of an ancient parish church. This meant something special to the congregation, which included people from the west of the city and the extra-parochial area of Leicester Abbey. The church was built to seat 460, and in the early 1960s around 50 people attended the 9.30 am Palm Sunday service, but by 1971 this had declined to 23.24 In 1970, the diocese publicly proposed that St Leonard’s congregation should unite with the congregation of the ancient and historic St Margaret’s church, and that their own ‘stark, angular’ nineteenth-century building should be demolished (Pevsner et al. 2003, p. 247). At this point, a proposal was made for a new worship centre to replace the church building. The diocesan pastoral committee was alleged to have had heated arguments about the proposal to close St Leonard, following receipt of 29 objections.25 Objectors emphasised longstanding family connections with the church and key concerns expressed were the distance to St Margaret’s church and the parsonage. There were comments about its vicar, although

142

D. BONNETTE

remarks were also made about the need for a new incumbent at St Leonard. St Margaret was approximately three miles away and was ‘useless for St Leonard’s people’ owing to transport issues on a Sunday.26 For some, it was at least a 30-minute walk across various busy main roads, because in the 1970s over 48% of households in Leicester did not own a car (Gunn 2013, p. 229). Women were also more likely to attend church than men, and at this time very few had driving licences so relied heavily on the ‘useless’ public transport (Crockett and Voas 2006, p. 570).27 Objectors also stated that St Margaret was not a parish church as it had no parishioners surrounding it. In the decision-making process, the two churches were compared by the diocese revealing some similarities. Both churches were in areas of housing clearances, and St Leonard was more likely to gain people from the west of the city, although Margaret’s electoral roll (120) was double that of St Leonard because it drew people from further afield. Sunday service numbers were under 30 for both churches, apart from when Evensong was offered at St Margaret, which drew 50, 30 more than St Leonard. Parochial organisations for young people at St Leonard, such as Church Lads’ Brigade were more faithorientated but had fewer members than St Margaret’s Cubs and Scouts. These religious clubs may have influenced younger people to attend church in the future, perhaps more so than those at St Margaret. The biggest difference was St Margaret’s adult organisations, including Mother’s Union and an old people’s club, which may have attracted people to the church services. However, a related but publicly unrecorded factor was that an official visit to St Leonard found the congregation to be ‘small, depressed and inadequately cared for’, and the bishop suspected that the incumbent was unwilling to leave because the vicarage ‘housed his collection of fairground organs’.28 Given the perceived similarities between the two churches, the proposed closure of St Leonard provoked a great deal of anger within the church congregation. The process took much longer because of diocesan delays and changes, and objection to the redundancy went as far as an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but was unsuccessful.29 The representatives of the PCC were expected to pay for the cost of the appeal, which was between £70 and £100, as well as their own expenses to travel to London. The process took so long that 12 of the original 29 objectors failed to reply when asked for their views by Church Commissioners a second time. They may have given up the fight or moved away, losing their church social networks. St Leonard never did

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

143

have its promised worship centre, nor keep the old parish name and the church was demolished in 1983. Its redundancy story demonstrates that the final decision to close was not driven purely by population or congregation size. St Margaret was historically important, and the bishop was also tackling a perceived clerical issue at St Leonard’s. However, it was a difficult time for the congregation for more than ten years. Objections to closure for worship took a different form in rural parishes. Some parishes were affected by the pull of in-migration of increasing numbers of middle-class incomers attracted by barn conversions and second homes. Incomers often brought differing views and values, which created a sharp distinction between old and new villagers, and rural churches may also have failed to engage with their ‘new’ populations (Lankshear 2012). Newcomers might either become involved in saving a church, if it was part of their image of the ideal village, might participate in the decision to close it (Lankshear 2012, p. 140), or might simply be indifferent. In Lincolnshire, an Asterby villager complained that ‘many of those early newcomers share the widely known characteristic of “pulling up the drawbridge” on their arrival’ (Williams 1993, pp. 250– 253). He accused new people in Asterby, who were members of nearby Goulceby church’s PCC, of deciding that it was an unnecessary burden to continue to maintain two church buildings. Asterby church was apparently declared redundant on the recommendations of newcomers of one parish who preferred the church of another. Aubourn’s redundancy exemplifies a sense of indifference from parishioners until the church building was threatened. It is approximately seven miles from Lincoln and its medieval church became too small for the villagers of Aubourn and Haddington, who worshipped together: in 1851 Aubourn’s population was 365, whereas in 1971 Aubourn and Haddington had a combined population of over 500. All but the chancel of the old church was demolished, and new St Peter’s church was built in 1863 (http://parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/, Aubourn and Haddington). In 1933, the remaining medieval chancel was restored. Ironically, by the early 1960s the new church was deteriorating rapidly and the congregation of 15 decided to meet in the chancel of the old church and close the new church. At a public meeting in 1965 to discuss the closure, most parishioners present were anxious to keep it open; and in an open letter to them, the rural dean wrote: ‘Aubourn people have supported the church in so poor a fashion that there are not sufficient means available even to

144

D. BONNETTE

meet the mere costs of heating and lighting.’.30 To the bishop of Lincoln, he wrote: The question remains is there, after the public meeting any change in the situation. Frankly none at all. The opposition to closure seems mainly sentimental and from non-churchgoers and those who want the ampler setting of the large church for their family occasions.31

Despite vocal objections, redundancy was not prevented, which caused long-lasting bitterness in the village, although the church was only partly demolished because residents raised funds to retain the building as a local landmark. In a letter to the diocese two years later, the incumbent wrote: You know too, of course, that the response from the village itself is not easily come by, since the closing of the ‘new’ church (quite necessarily) has left the usual feelings behind, and those feelings are not yet settled.32

Almost twenty years later, the vicar of Stretton-en-le-Field in Leicestershire emphasised the indifference of the people in the parish, noting that when repair to the church was needed, ‘the same people who complained about it being closed did nothing to keep it in good repair’ (Burton Daily Mail 1984). Willesley is a thought-provoking example of varying parishioner response to church closure and to the Church of England. There was an unaffordable repair estimate of over £80,000 and the archdeacon had informed the congregation that there should be no fundraising because the church did not serve a community. Once the church was sold (allegedly for £10) to the Scout Movement, local people raised £6,000, a significantly different figure from the original figure. They provided voluntary labour for the restoration of the church and the opening service was well attended (Leicester Mercury 1991). Other examples demonstrate that social relations in the local communities were not conflict-free, and that community sentiment could run high, despite high levels of non-attendance. Amongst the Anglican community of worshippers, there was some sadness that worship could no longer take place and questionnaire responses for this study were varied. Some PCCs were pleased when buildings were adopted by the RCF, which would take over the punitive maintenance costs, thereby preserving important architectural and historic landscape features. Others noted that a preserved

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

145

church was being used as a community resource, such as at Normanby-bySpital, Lincolnshire. The ‘local school use it for services, the art club for exhibitions, the Armistice Day service is held in the church and by special request a wedding can take place’.33 From a clergy perspective, one vicar commented that he had been relieved when his church had closed because he had felt he ‘wasn’t doing his job properly’ when confronted with constantly falling numbers in his congregation.34 There was a general sense of regret if a church was to be converted into a residence or demolished, because the action could not be reversed and the church was ‘gone for eternity’.35 However, some believed that empty redundant churches should be demolished because they symbolised the Church of England’s failure to connect with people. Yet, parishioners were also pragmatic. For example, a parishioner from Muckton was ‘sorry that the building was demolished but now it has gone, instead of a rather dark view to the west we have sunlight’ (Fig. 4.5).36 Thus, people in the community expressed a wide range of objections, ranging from nostalgia, inconvenience, aesthetic attachment and sentimental feeling, to anger, apathy, indifference and remorse for not having acted sooner. Objectors did not always have sufficient grasp of the practical issues to ward off closures being tackled by tired PCCs as they were not involved until redundancy was proposed. Certainly, like the Hoten example at the beginning, there was a sense that the church ‘belonged’ to the community, rather than the Church (through the incumbent). The aftermath of conflict about redundancy was often described in the media as giving the church back to the community. Responses to proposed alternative secular use also highlighted this perception.

Reaction to the Alternative Use of Church Buildings Prior to PM1968, redundant churches were used for a variety of purposes, including commercial, but the Bridges Commission found that other possibilities had been insufficiently explored (Archbishops’ Commission 1960, p. 65). It envisaged redundant churches becoming theatres, galleries, workshops or residences, but thought that ‘commercial or industrial uses were generally regarded as less appropriate, partly because such uses would be unseemly in a building which had been a church and continued to look like one’ (p. 35). In the early 1970s, restaurant and shop owners were averse to redeveloping old buildings in cities, but they

146

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 4.5 Muckton church, 1983, now demolished (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology)

steadily changed their views through the late 1970s and early 1980s as good examples were publicised. Meanwhile, the diocese had up to three years to find alternative uses, and during this ‘waiting period’, church buildings were the responsibility of the diocesan board of finance.37 When this stipulation was debated in the House of Lords, the bishop of Lincoln, with some foresight, was ‘rather frightened that perhaps in some ways the process may take too long; that buildings may fall into disrepair because nobody will be greatly concerned to see to their maintenance during the

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

147

waiting period’ (Hansard 1969, cols. 378–390). He proposed less rigidity about what was or what was not a proper alternative use for a building. During the same debate, Lord Hawke, chairman of a diocesan board of finance, did not like the idea ‘of having to finance, possibly for three years, some large church in an area frequented by hooligans, to try to preserve it from destruction while some very worthy body tries to find some use for it’. Some heritage bodies objected to alternative uses for specific churches, and Ivor Bulmer-Thomas was particularly strident about the policy: The conversion of churches into factories, warehouses and dwelling houses ought not to be tolerated. When the Bolsheviks did to churches what the Commissioners are now in many cases authorising, ecclesiasts they denounced them with a bell, book and candle: and I cannot change my views because the Ukase now bears the address No.1. Millbank. (Church Times 1978)38

The Friends of Friendless Churches was against churches being allowed to become residences, because this denied the public access to them as places of worship. There were other difficulties with finding alternative uses, and the Church itself was worried about how some ideas would be perceived by the public. For this reason, Bishop Riches of Lincoln did not wish redundant churches to be advertised for sale in local newspapers.39 Local parishioners did not relish having their village churches converted into houses or worse, and concerns were voiced frequently during the closure process, much more than for the closure of the church (see Chapter 6). Nationally, only 12% of redundant churches became dwellings between 1968 and 2000, with Bath and Salisbury having the most (15 apiece) and Lincoln 13. The neighbouring diocese of Norwich has had an impressive record of finding economically and socially viable uses for its redundant churches and converted only two into houses. Once a church was made redundant, significant expectations were placed on the diocese to find a ‘fitting use’ for the building, and this was when parishioners and other interested parties became much more exercised by the decision-making. The Church of England’s difficulties in deciding on proper uses or disposal of its buildings were ‘theological, legal and emotional—all of them significant’ (General Synod 1996, Sect. 1.5). Finding alternative uses that were not going to raise public concern was not necessarily easy, particularly for redundant churches in very rural areas, often with no vehicular access. For some, owing to their geography,

148

D. BONNETTE

state of repair or sheer size, it took a very long time to find willing buyers, and sometimes no-one wanted them at all. Church of England data on the wide range of uses agreed nationally show that between 1968 and 2000, around 55% of redundant churches were found alternative uses, Lincoln was lower (46.2%) and Leicester much lower (37.5%). (By 2018, the percentage of churches being found an alternative use nationally was higher, at 56.8%, mainly due to a rise in the percentage of redundant churches becoming residences, from 11% in 1995 to 16.4%). Alternative uses fall into 18 common categories (Table 4.2). Fig. 4.6 shows that apart from vesting, demolition and conversion to a residence, all other categories account for 14% of the total. The picture in Leicester and Lincoln was different (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8). Leicester had far fewer redundant churches, for which seven types of alternative use were found, conversion to a dwelling being the most popular. In Lincoln, nine different alternative uses were found, with conversion to residence also being the most frequent. The churches’ geographical location made some more suited to become monuments in private hands. Those leading the PM1968 process at some distance from Lincoln and Leicester were dissatisfied with the low success rate in finding alternative uses, and in 1980 a weary Lincoln diocesan redundant church uses committee reported its response: No amount of goading from the centre will, or did in 1980, produce a single success story, and the experience of 1980 presages an ever-increasing list of unwanted church buildings falling into greater and greater disrepair as the years pass (Lincoln Diocese 1980).

Table 4.2 Types of alternative use, 1968–2000

Monument Storage Educational

Office or shopping Light industry Sports

Music or drama

Site disposal

Arts and crafts

Secretary of State

Other Christian body

Diocesan Board Finance

Museum Private chapel Civic, cultural, community Adjunct to estate Parochial or ecclesiastical Other

Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical Database, 2007

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

Part pres/part demo Site disposal Estates Sports Music/drama Museum

Part use

149

Dio. Bd. Finance Blank

Sec. State

National

Other Other Christian

Light industry Office

Residential

Parochial

Arts

Educational Monument Civic Storage Private chapel

Fig. 4.6 National alternative use, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical Database, 2007)

The diocese also believed that too many interested parties wielded power without responsibility, which led to a protracted redundancy process and consequently a higher than necessary number of demolitions. The Advisory Board for Redundant Churches enforced a series of restrictive covenants, which protected the buildings from poor conversion, but discouraged sales of redundant churches40 ; heritage bodies lengthened the alternative use seeking period by objecting but did not always offer

150

D. BONNETTE

Leicester Diocese Site disposal 11% Other Christian 22% Museum 11%

Arts 11%

Residential 22% Educational 11% Monument 11%

Fig. 4.7 Leicester Diocese percentage for each alternative use, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division database, 2007)

funding; local planning authorities, especially in East Lindsey, did not favour church buildings being converted, yet at the same time denounced demolitions. There were also problems with the buildings, including their distance from amenities, lack of access, worse state of repair than initially thought, shortage of parking, objections to residential use by the local community and proposed uses harmful to their character. Sometimes agreed sales fell through, which affected several redundant churches in the Lincoln Diocese. For example, Moorby church had eight purchase offers withdrawn, Wyham’s sale stuttered because the purchaser was wary of the covenants for maintenance and repair, East Heckington’s first offer was withdrawn, and Withern and Authorpe both had conversion plans refused by the local authority.

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

151

Lincoln Diocese Other 11% Site disposal 3% Estates 3%

Residential 27%

Arts 14%

Civic 5% Private chapel 3%

Monument 22% Storage 14%

Fig. 4.8 Lincoln Diocese percentage for each alternative use, 1968–2000 (Source Extracted from Closed Churches Division database, 2007)

Many objections after redundancy were related to the proposed demolition of the church building and the subsequent loss of a national heritage, which are examined in Chapter 6. Conversion to housing often raised concerns for Lincolnshire local authority councillors and there are many examples of the reluctance to grant permission. In Sutterby for example, there were only two houses and a deteriorating church building, not used for many years. The planning committee refused permission for future conversion, but other council members pushed for the committee to allow an appeal to save the building from demolition. One irritated councillor commented that:

152

D. BONNETTE

if we were to do this piecemeal in every little village, with everyone bleeding their hearts out for a wreak of a church, which no one has wanted in the past years, we shall get nowhere. Nobody has bothered about it, including the pastoral flock of the church. (Lincolnshire Echo 1973)

The various alternative uses suggested for Stamford St Michael were not appreciated by local people. One letter writer complained I shall never, of course, be able to understand how a Bishop can proceed throughout his diocese and survey the sites of demolished churches or their conversions into warehouses, etc., with an easy conscience, and, presumably, even a sense of satisfaction.41

A proposal to convert it into shops aroused anger from objectors, who considered that if ‘such a place, and its quiet surroundings, shall be handed over to “Mammon” and commercialised, it must cause much anguish of heart to many’ (Stamford Mercury 1980). A further letter to the planning committee complained of the ‘debasement’ of the church, ‘with teas served on the site of its altar’. The writer trusted that the ‘Christian element in the planning committee may prevail’.42 ‘Fitting use’ was very subjective, and the consequent debate and conflict arising from selling redundant church buildings caused tensions between a range of parties involved in the redundancy process.

Conclusion This chapter has illustrated how parish communities surrounding the churches changed significantly during the twentieth century, creating unique circumstances that contributed to Anglican redundancy. Reasons for church redundancies were seldom straightforward and did not relate solely to aspects of secularisation. In the two dioceses in the 1940s, there were already too many rural and city churches, often with small congregations, a situation worsened by population decline. The church’s geographical position was a particular contributing factor because it had a bearing on the size and composition of the worshipping community. Congregation size responded to the demographic forces identified by Currie et al (1977) in differing ways. Modernisation of cities meant that churches suffered from planning policies that separated them from their traditional parish communities. Urban housing clearances and new road

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

153

networks left ancient churches isolated from the local population, particularly in Leicester. People remaining in the city were elderly or very young and not necessarily able or willing to attend local churches. In rural Lincolnshire, many churches were remote, difficult to access and sometimes in the middle of farm fields. Local authority planning policies, school closures and reductions to other services led to lack of growth in settlements and many very small villages, especially in East Lindsey. Hence, in both rural and urban areas, there was a lack of demand for Anglican churches and the ability to grow congregations was severely constrained by modernising forces. In Lincolnshire, it was compounded by the diocesan strategy of large groups of churches or proposing closure where the population was under 100. While there may have been an overall reluctance to close the churches, it added to the perception that churches in small parishes would not succeed, and may have led to a disproportionate number of redundancies. In the city, a small loyal group from a neighbouring parish or who had moved to the new estates did continue to attend the old parish church, linked to a sense of belonging to a specific Anglican community and the social networks it provided. However, this proved unsustainable in the long term. There is evidence that the sense of belonging was threatened, and some congregations attempted to hold on to their church community for as long as possible. They worked valiantly to save their local churches, despite challenging financial issues and deteriorating buildings. Sentimental attachment could be strong, but it did not necessarily encourage financial support for the church from those in the parishes, including the ‘modern suburbanites’ who did not have historical or personal associations with their village churches and did not generally attend worship. They associated the church with the village identity but appeared unaware of, or indifferent to its maintenance and care until it was threatened. The very few objections to closure illustrate this. However, the building was perceived as belonging to the community, rather than to the diocese and attitudes changed if the building was threatened by demolition or unappealing alternative use. Concerted efforts were made from the parish community to raise funds to save the building after closure but money to keep the church open for worship was not forthcoming. The dioceses were facing financial and staffing challenges, sustaining over large buildings in the city or tiny buildings in rural areas. They also wanted to ensure the ‘cure of souls’ on newly built estates. They were willing to face conflict in order to focus on evangelistic mission

154

D. BONNETTE

and were prepared to close churches and merge congregations to do so. The dioceses were attempting to rationalise and grow at the same time, and this caused a further set of tensions. Congregations saw their churches closing, while being asked to contribute to subscriptions to build new ones, which did not necessarily attract the expected attendance. At the same time, dioceses planned changes to the old parish boundaries by merging small parishes and creating new ones. Reactions to rapid change were slow, due to numerous consultations, manpower changes and competing agendas. Congregational agreement varied. In some churches, such as Leicester St George and Leicester St Matthew, the congregation felt there was no community to serve and thus closure was the appropriate course of action. In other churches, agreement was difficult to achieve and the diocese did not appear to fully recognise congregants’ loyalty and sense of belonging to a specific local church, preferring (wrongly) to believe that congregations would easily worship elsewhere. However, loyalty was not transferable, as the story of the church community at Leicester St Leonard exemplifies. Extremely slow decision-making or being identified early for redundancy affected worshippers’ morale and tested their steadfastness to the Church of England, especially when aspects of the system appeared to them to be neither transparent nor fair. Despite the size of their congregations, churches of outstanding architectural or historical interest could survive even in very tiny settlements, if there was a strong community will. This would add to the belief that old churches created a stronger sense of attachment and belonging than their more modern counterparts. It also confirms that the churches survived because they demonstrated a sense of the traditional rural idyll. Community action became much more prominent in the later twentieth century, when renewed interest led to the establishment of local friends’ groups. These were led by those searching for a greater sense of community, or who could envision a wider use of the church. An ever-dwindling number of Anglicans could not keep the same number of buildings going indefinitely. Redundant churches set a tone of decay, decline and demolition, not necessarily forever, but certainly for the lifetimes of many local people.

Notes 1. ROLLR, DE3163/29/172 Leicester St George, vestry minutes, 1987. 2. ROLLR, DE3163/29/172.

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

155

3. ROLLR, DE3163/19/1 Leicester St George, letter from the secretary of the PCC to the Diocese, 7 August 1968. 4. St George’s church, the first built in Leicester since the Reformation, had been paid for entirely by the Church Building Commissioners at a cost of £16,600, the largest amount spent on any Leicestershire church in the nineteenth century. The redundancy proposal had been made by Leicester diocesan pastoral committee as early as 1960. 5. CC, RC19/118 Leicester St Leonard, objections. 6. Lincoln’s population increased at a rate substantially above the national average between 1948 and the early 1960s. 7. 39,000 people in the city were being catered for in 15 parishes with 16 priests. The remaining 32,000 were organised into four districts manned by five clergymen. St Martin’s, which originally seated 1,000 at its peak, had a rapidly declining population. Membership was mainly from outside the parish, and the proposed 50-foot dual carriageway would separate the church from a considerable area of its parish. 8. LA, PAR/20/1 Lincoln St Paul, vestry minutes, January 1965. 9. Standard (parish magazine for Blyton, Pilham, Laughton, East Stockwith and Wildsworth), April 1978. There were 12 families in Wildsworth at the time the magazine was published. 10. Only the tower of Brentingby was vested in the RCF. The remainder became a residence. 11. ROLLR, DE6832 Letter from Church Commissioners to St Mark’s PCC, 16 September 1982. 12. ROLLR, DE6832 St Mark, vestry minutes, 10 February 1976. 13. ROLLR, DE6832 St Mark’s, vestry minutes, 19 July 1976. 14. ROLLR, DE8767 St Michael, PCC minutes, special meeting, 6 December 1980. 15. ROLLR, DE8767 St Michael, PCC minutes, September 1979. 16. ROLLR, DE8767 St Michael, PCC minutes, September 1979. 17. ROLLR, DE8767 St Michael, PCC minutes, February 1980. 18. ROLLR, DE6832 St Mark, redundancy papers, letter to the diocese from churchwardens, 26 January 1982. 19. ROLLR, DE6832 St Mark, redundancy papers, August 1979, meeting notes of Rev. E.W. Carlisle, vicar of St Michael. 20. Kenneth Middleton, vicar of St Matthew’s in 1955, was elected to the City Council in 1970, and was the Labour leader of the council, 1974–1976 and 1979–1982. He took a positive approach to the new communities in Leicester. 21. PM1968, S.50(4) ‘Before preparing a draft redundancy scheme the Commissioners shall publish in one or more newspapers in the locality in which the redundant building is situated a notice stating the effect the draft scheme … and stating that written representations with respect

156

22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27.

28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39. 40. 41.

D. BONNETTE

to the draft scheme may be made to the Commissioners’; S.50(5) ‘The Commissioners shall consider any representations … and may decide not to proceed with it or to amend it or to proceed with it in its original form and shall consult the bishop before making their decision’. CC, RC21/352 Redbourne St Andrew. Interview with former cleric, August 2016. ROLLR, Leicester St Leonard service registers: DE2244/30 1956–1962, DE2244/31 1962–1969 and DE2244/32 1970–1978. The parish’s population had declined from 13,000 in 1945 to 50 in 1979. ROLLR, DE3643/85 PCC papers relating to closure of Leicester St Leonard. CC, RC19/118 Leicester St Leonard, objections to redundancy, 1975. Women born between 1900 and 1919 were 51% more likely to attend church than their male peers. Those born between 1960 and 1970 were 39% more likely. CC, RC19/118 Leicester St Leonard, Pastoral committee minutes, 24 July 1978. Under PM1968, S.8(2), schedule 2 Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, any person who has duly made written representations with respect to the scheme may appeal to Her Majesty in Council. LA, PAR/23/2 Aubourn St Peter, correspondence, 1965. LA, PAR//23/2 Aubourn St Peter, open letter to village from the rural dean, 1965; letter to the bishop from the rural dean, 1965. LA, PAR/23/12 Aubourn St Peter, correspondence between Canon Binnacle and the churchwarden, 18 May 1967. Questionnaire response, Normanby-by-Spital, January 2016. Interview with former cleric, September 2016. Interview with former cleric, September 2016. Questionnaire response, Muckton church, January 2016. The ‘waiting period’ was the interval between a declaration of redundancy and the coming into operation of a redundancy scheme. During this period the diocesan board of finance (DBF) was responsible for the care and maintenance and the safekeeping of its contents: S. 49 (2)(a). The liability of the PCC or rector for repair and maintenance ceased, but they were under an obligation to give the DBF every assistance in providing for reasonable supervision. (S.49 (3) and S.49 (2)c). No. 1 Millbank housed the offices of the Church Commissioners. CC, RC21/70 Brauncewell All Saints, January 1974. Lincoln Diocese, Redundant Churches Uses Committee minutes, 25 July 1983. CC, RC21/419 St Michael Stamford, letter to Kesteven County Planning Officer, 26 November 1973.

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

157

42. CC, RC21/419 St Michael Stamford, letter to Kesteven County Planning Officer, 26 November 1973. The church aisle walls were opened for the retail plan.

References Archival sources CC, RC19/118 Leicester St Leonard, objections to redundancy. LA, PAR/20/1 Lincoln St Paul, vestry minutes, January 1965a. LA, PAR/23/2 Aubourn St Peter, correspondence, 1965b. LA, PAR/23/12 Aubourn St Peter, correspondence between Canon Binnacle and the churchwarden, 18 May 1967. ROLLR, DE2244/30 Leicester St Leonard service registers, 1956–1962. ROLLR, DE2244/31 Leicester St Leonard service registers, 1962–1969. ROLLR, DE2244/32 Leicester St Leonard service registers, 1970–1978. ROLLR, DE3163/19/1 Leicester St George, letter from the secretary of the PCC to the Diocese, 7 August 1968. ROLLR, DE3163/29/172 Leicester St George, vestry minutes, 1987. ROLLR, DE3643/85 PCC papers relating to closure of Leicester St Leonard. ROLLR, DE6832 Letter from Church Commissioners to St Mark’s PCC, 16 September 1982; St Mark, vestry minutes, 10 February 1976 and 19 July 1976; letter to the diocese from churchwardens, 26 January 1982; meeting notes of Revd. E.W. Carlisle, vicar of St Michael, August 1979. ROLLR, DE6832, Leicester St Mark’s redundancy papers, 1981. ROLLR, DE8767 St Michael, PCC minutes, September 1979 and February 1980; special meeting, 6 December 1980.

Published sources Ambler, R.W. 2000. Churches, Chapels and the Parish Communities of Lincolnshire 1660–1900. History of Lincolnshire Committee: Lincoln. Archbishops’ Commission. 1960. Redundant Churches Report 1958–1960. London: Archbishops’ Commission. Beazley, B. 2011. Postwar Leicester. Stroud: History Press. Bishop’s Commission. 1970. Report on the Future of the Parishes and Churches of Inner Leicester. Leicester: Leicester Diocese. Bott, E. 1971. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock. Burton Daily Mail. 1984. Parish church merger is now on the cards. Burton Daily Mail, 12 September.

158

D. BONNETTE

Church Times. 1978. Letter. Church Times, 24 February. Country Life. 1970. Country Life, 9 July, p. 90. Crockett, A., and D. Voas. 2006. Generations of decline: Religious change in 20th-century Britain. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45: 567–584. Currie, R., A. Gilbert, and L. Horsley. 1977. Churches and Churchgoers: Patterns of Church Growth in the British Isles since 1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, D., C. Watkins and M. Winter. 1991. Church and Religion in Rural England. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Francis, L.J., and D.W. Lankshear. 1990. The impact of church schools on village church life. Educational Studies 16: 117–129. General Synod. 1996. Communities and Buildings: Church of England Premises and Other Faiths. London: Church House. Gunn, S. 2013. People and the car: The expansion of automotability in urban Britain, c.1955–1970. Social History 38: 220–237. Hansard. 1969. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 22 April 1969. Hansard 301. Lankshear, D.W. 2012. Is the rural church different? The special case of confirmation. In Rural Life and Rural Church: Theological and Empirical Perspectives, ed. L.J. Francis and M. Robbins, 131–144. Oxford: Routledge. Leicester Chronicle. 1959. The mystery of the growing congregation. Leicester Chronicle, 7 March. Leicester Evening Mail. 1938. Leicestershire wants £75,000 to build churches. Leicester Evening Mail, 12 May, p. 10. Leicester Evening Mail. 1956. New mission for city church. Leicester Evening Mail, 23 May. Leicester Mercury. 1956. Slum clearance programme. Leicester Mercury, 2 June. Leicester Mercury. 1969. The last sermon at Leicester St George’s church. Leicester Mercury, 26 May. Leicester Mercury. 1972. Leicester Mercury, 12 May. Leicester Mercury. 1982. Happy to see their church go. Leicester Mercury, 6 January. Leicester Mercury. 1991. Volunteers renovate abandoned chapel to old glory. Leicester Mercury, 8 October. Lincoln Diocesan Pastoral Re-organisation Committee. 1958. The Parishes and Churches of Lincoln. Lincoln Diocesan Board of Finance: Lincoln. Lincoln Diocese. 1966. Lincoln Diocesan Directory, 1966. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln. Lincoln Diocese. 1968. Into Tomorrow: A Report on the Pastoral ReOrganisation. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln. Lincoln Diocese. 1980. Redundant Churches Uses Committee Report. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln.

4

COMMUNITY: CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE …

159

Lincolnshire Chronicle. 1964a. War declared in bid to stop shut-down Lincolnshire Chronicle, 11 January. Lincolnshire Chronicle. 1964b. Parishioners ‘will fight to the end’. Lincolnshire Chronicle, 24 January. Lincolnshire Chronicle. 1964c. Is St Martin’s church doomed? Lincolnshire Chronicle, 28 February. Lincolnshire Echo. 1962. Bishop lays a foundation of a family church. Lincolnshire Echo, 24 July. Lincolnshire Echo. 1963. Commission sound death knell of Lincoln church. Lincolnshire Echo, 14 June. Lincolnshire Echo. 1964a. Save menaced Lincoln church. Lincolnshire Echo, 13 January. Lincolnshire Echo. 1964b. Doomed Lincoln church: meeting upsets bishop. Lincolnshire Echo, 5 February. Lincolnshire Echo. 1965. Danger in the worship of hallowed stones. Lincolnshire Echo, 13 April. Lincolnshire Echo. 1968. Bishop was fully aware of views, appeal is told. Lincolnshire Echo, 18 July. Lincolnshire Echo. 1973. Sutterby church plan: council wants go ahead. Lincolnshire Echo, 1 November. Lincolnshire Education Committee. 1970. Reorganisation of Primary Education. Lincoln: Lincolnshire County Council. Lincolnshire Education Committee. 1978. Small Primary Schools in Rural Areas. Lincolnshire County Council: Lincoln. Lindsey County Council. 1969. Communities in Rural Lindsey: Present and Future. Lindsey County Council: Lincoln. Pevsner, N., G. Brandwood, and E. Williamson. 2003. The Buildings of England: Leicestershire and Rutland. London: Yale University Press. Scott, S. 1989. The early days of planning. In Twentieth Century Lincolnshire, ed. D. Mills, 181–211. History of Lincolnshire Committee: Lincoln. Shaw, K., and F. Robinson. 1998. Learning from experience? Reflections on two decades of British urban policy. The Town Planning Review 69: 49–63. Simmons, J. 1974. Leicester Past and Present, Volume 2: Modern City: 1860–1974. London: Methuen. Snell, K.D.M. 2009. Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700–1950. Cambridge: CUP. Stamford Mercury. 1980. Letter. Stamford Mercury, 10 October. The Guardian. 1990. Poisoned chalice. The Guardian, 30 March. The Illustrated Chronicle. 1957. Leicester’s new churches. The Illustrated Chronicle, 26 October. The Telegraph. 2004. 100 favourite churches. Telegraph Weekend, 18 December, pp. 13–16.

160

D. BONNETTE

UK Government. 1944. Education Act (7 & 8 Geo 6, c.31, 1944). Weekley, I. 1988. Rural depopulation and counterurbanisation: A paradox. Area 20: 127–134. Williams, B. 1993. A History of the Villages of Asterby and Goulceby. Louth: H. B. Williams.

CHAPTER 5

Personal Religiosity: Belonging, Believing and Behaving

The Church of England ... has the smallest ratio of attendance to membership, the highest percentage of apathy and disinterestedness ... It has done nothing to help people to deal with difficulties facing them today; it has no plan. (News Review 1947)

The News Review makes a strong statement that has echoed through the following decades. It asserts that a small number of the total communicants of the Church of England attend church, and this is worse than any other Christian denomination. It views this as a demonstration of apathy and disinterest. The Church has failed to connect with people’s everyday lives and has lost sight of the need to be proactive when it was most needed during World War II. At this time, people were oblivious to hotly debated post-war social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and gay rights in the 1960s, feminism, changing attitudes to sex, the impact of ethnicity and immigration in the 1970s and 1980s, debates about traditional gender roles by the 1990s and post-Millennium concepts of a post-gender society. Accusations, such as those from the News Review, are regularly used in the secularisation debate to explain why so many Anglican churches have been made redundant in the twentieth century. This is reinforced by a wealth of national statistical data available on church affiliation and membership, which has led to a prevailing acceptance of a significant decline in religious belief, although some view this © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_5

161

162

D. BONNETTE

decline as neither evenly spread nor irreversible. Secularisation is conventionally divided into three areas, believing, belonging and behaving and is generally measured by data. Belonging includes the concepts of religious affiliation and membership and behaving is concerned with public attendance and participation. It is difficult to be clear about patterns of believing, although it is considered that together belonging and behaving provide a reasonable guide to the strength of personal religiosity (Field 2019). It is also argued that there remain layers of personal religiosity that can become more explicit (Davie 2006). The following analysis seeks to explore beyond raw attendance data to consider what was happening in the redundant churches in the two regions in relation to belonging, believing and behaving. Religious choice is examined in the two dioceses to understand whether there was a greater supply and variety of Christian places of worship to which to belong than was needed. Traditional measurements of church affiliation, membership and attendance are examined, and questions raised about the statistics’ validity for individual church redundancies. Was redundancy the natural outcome if a church had a small membership and low and declining attendance? The religious context of Leicester changed significantly during the twentieth century, and it is important to analyse how this affected Anglican churches and the local community. Attitudes to purchases of redundant buildings by non-Christian faith groups are studied, as are attitudes to the sale of Anglican churchyards to test ‘under the surface’ religiosity and how a sense of believing and belonging could be demonstrated.

Religious Choice In Driby, Lincolnshire, with six houses in the hamlet and four at Driby Top, Reverend Fluck complained just before the church closure that ‘none attend the church … there is a strong Methodist tradition dating from the previous tenant of the large house’.1 In East Lindsey, 318 Nonconformist places of worship were built between the late seventeenth century and early twentieth century, far more than in any other district in Lincolnshire (Lincolnshire County Council 2013, p. 5).2 Into the nineteenth century, multiple divisions of Methodism were in competition with each other, which meant that some villages had more than one chapel (Ambler 2000, p. 140). This spread prospective congregations between more churches, although some people attended the services of

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

163

both Methodist and Anglican churches. Often, Nonconformist chapels were demolished to make way for new chapels on the same site, usually replacing smaller chapels with bigger ones (Leary 1970). Over-building meant that by 1932, over 200 places in Lincolnshire had two chapels of different Methodist denominations, and ‘300 chapels could have been declared redundant without losing the Methodist presence from a single community’ (Neville 1989, p. 313). Many Methodist denominations united to rationalise their resources, and smaller chapels were made redundant. ‘Such closures and the forced amalgamation of circuits often ran counter to the identity and sense of community of the chapel built up in its constituent congregation’ (Catterall 2016, p. 89). Prolonged discussions took place between Church of England and Methodist leaders to explore how they could work together, but it was left to local cooperation to make decisions. Several churches, such as Cumberworth had united services with the chapel during the 1950s but relationships in other areas were sometimes strained. In 1952, for example, the rector of Withern, Lincolnshire admitted there was a gulf between church and chapel, which made things difficult in the village. He ‘was afraid he could not amend this, as it was not his wish to join the two in services, as he was a Churchman’.3 The Methodists suffered challenges comparable with those faced by the Anglican churches in Lincolnshire villages, and the buildings faced similar fates. There were fewer people to attend, with a lack of ministers and laypeople to take services and perform essential duties. Declining congregations were an issue, although there was a standing order that ‘when a local church has a membership lower than six over a period of a year, then it shall cease to be regarded as a local church’ (Burton 2007, p. 127). This was much clearer than the Anglican definition. After 1968, many Methodist churches closed when Reverend Thackray, chair of the Lincoln and Grimsby Methodist District, advocated a centralisation policy, whereby work was concentrated in the most promising villages. Nationally, in 1970 there were 9,383 Methodist churches, and by 2000 this had reduced by 34% to 6,161. This was much higher than the reduction in the number of Anglican churches over the same three decades (Burton 2007, p. 130). There were many more Methodist closures in urban than rural areas between 1970 and 1980, and more rural closures between 1980 and 2000 (Burton 2007, p. 132), whereas the Church of England closed more urban churches across these three decades.

164

D. BONNETTE

Leicester worshippers had a profusion of dissenting churches from which to choose throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and they closed for a variety of reasons. Around four Methodist and Baptist chapels closed during the 1950s, nine in the 1960s, four in the 1970s, one in the 1980s and one in the 1990s (Moore 2008). In the 1960s, Baptist churches like their Anglican counterparts, generally closed because they were in areas designated for new roads. For instance, Harvey Lane was demolished to make way for the St Nicholas’ Circle development and the Leicester Royal Infirmary extension appears to have led to the closure of two in the Aylestone area. The changing demography affected many Christian denominations, although Nonconformists were able to respond much more quickly to change than the Church of England, and closures did not necessarily occur at the same time. There were fewer legal restrictions and less historic or aesthetic interest in Nonconformist buildings at that time. Ownership of Methodist buildings was vested in the Methodist Conference, and local and circuit decisions to close them were ratified by the district synod (The Methodist Church 1951). Redundant Methodist buildings were also simpler to dispose because they were more easily adapted than Anglian churches, and many became garages and shops (Burton 2007). While places of worship were being closed in some areas, new ones of Christian denominations were being built to serve the council and private estates springing up around the city (Table 5.1). There was significant building in the 1930s and 1960s but only 18% were Anglican churches. Table 5.1 New places of Christian worship in Leicester built in the twentieth century4

Leicester 1921–30 1931–40 1941–50 1951–60 1961–70 1971–80 1981–90 1991–95 Total

Anglican churches 1 1 4 5 1 12

Other mainstream Christian churches 7 12 6 9 11 9 7 4 65

Source Extracted from A. Moore, Where Leicester has Worshipped (Leicester 2008)

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

165

Tellingly, by 2008, four of the 12 new Anglican churches had closed, three of which were subsequently demolished. Thus, all Christian faith communities appear to have experienced both rivalry, growth and rationalisation. Demography and urban growth would shape its dynamics, but it would prove to be an irreversible trend.

Patterns of Belonging Electoral rolls are churches’ registers of electors qualified to attend and vote at annual parochial church meetings. They do not necessarily accurately identify church attenders, nor even regular attenders. Nevertheless, they give a broad indication of interest in Anglicanism and are used by dioceses for pastoral planning purposes (Benson and Roberts 2002). The rules on additions to the rolls changed over time. The age at which one was first added to the roll was 18 before 1957, 17 between 1957 and 1980 and 16 after 1980. Electors had to be baptised, and to have been resident in the parish or habitual worshippers for six months prior to joining the roll. The introduction of a total revision of the roll every six years began in 1972, although not all incumbents adopted this change. Inclusion appeared to demonstrate loyalty to a specific church and could create a sense of exclusivity from other parishioners. In 1949, the church at Redbourne in Lincolnshire was in such a poor state that the churchwardens made the extreme decision to sell the bells, silver and organ to pay for repairs. At a parish meeting, ‘several people, who had no right to attend the meeting, made themselves very unpleasant but as they were not even on the electoral roll, their opinions were, as most of them were— worthless’.5 The people of the parish had to be consulted even if they were not members of the congregation. In Leicester, the electoral roll is of partial use because of the significant changes to housing over time and the proximity of each church, which allowed people to easily worship in nearby parishes rather than their own (see Chapter 4). There was religious choice and the ancient churches of St Margaret, St Nicholas and All Saints were particularly popular, even though less than 50 people lived in the parishes. Taking into account issues with census and electoral roll data, analysis of the rolls illustrates a declining pattern. In 1951, the combined rolls of 12 city parish churches were approximately six per cent of the parish population.6 By 1961, it was around seven per cent, in 1971 it had declined dramatically to 0.04% and the overwhelming majority of those on individual church electoral rolls

166

D. BONNETTE

did not live in the parish. In 1981, the total population of the parishes had dropped by 30% but the combined electoral rolls rose very slightly to 0.06%. The figures demonstrate a very low level of affiliation across the 12 parishes and even lower when non-resident electors are examined. One of the churches that drew from outside its parish was All Souls. Its Anglo-Catholic churchmanship in the 1960s attracted over half of its electoral roll of 89 from beyond the parish. There was an 8 a.m. Holy Communion and an 11 a.m. Choral Eucharist, which together gained an average of 25 regular communicants from the 1940s onwards. The congregation was loyal to the church and continued to travel some distance from new homes in places such as Braunstone, Narborough Glen Parva and Whetstone.7 By January 1981, the roll had declined to 30, only six of whom lived in the parish. There were ‘no people left in the parish’, and the demographics had changed, since some who did live nearby were described charitably as ‘problem-people’. On Christmas morning 1982, to the vicar’s disappointment, there was a congregation of one, and ‘she did not normally go to church’.8 Just prior to the church’s closure in 1987, the average Sunday attendance was only six, and 12 attended the Easter service. The church was identified for closure because of low numbers, although it took a long time to finalise the decision. Interestingly, the redundant building was renamed Saint Nicholas and Saint Xenophon and became a place of worship for the Greek Orthodox Church. It continues to operate in 2022 and draws from a much wider geographical area than previously. While not an Anglican church, it remains a Christian place of worship in the area. Although heavily criticised, attendance figures have continued to be used as an indicator of religious affiliation and belonging to a church, broadly defined (Field 2008). Church attendance undoubtedly declined nationally between 1945 and 2000, and in terms of the percentage of the population, fell from 3.5% in 1968 to 2.2% in 1994 (Gill 2003, p. 247). Figures were similar for the Leicester Diocese, which declined from 3.4 to 2.0%. While percentages in the Lincoln Diocese were higher than the national figure, they also declined, from 4.2 to 2.6% of the population. Close examination of how attendance in the two study regions was recorded by incumbents and churchwardens validates the various criticisms of use of the statistics, as at a local level there were serious flaws. Incumbents typically recorded all services held at their church in the service register, including the number of communicants at Holy Communion and the total amount taken in collections. In the Church of England,

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

167

it was expected that people should be confirmed in order to take Holy Communion as communicants. This was viewed as an unofficial measure of church membership (Currie et al. 1977), although this is disputed (Gill 2003). Confirmation is also seen as an indicator of personal religiosity, although it may be seen as a barrier to church attendance for those not confirmed (Davies et al. 1991). The quality with which the service registers were completed varied considerably. Some were regularly and beautifully inscribed, while others were full of crossings out and notes. The registers’ formats changed over time as the diocese collected more information centrally, and not all churches in the diocese used the same format. Many registers also narrated the fortunes of the church over a long period, documenting the arrival and departure of incumbents and even the inclemency of the weather. They appear to be where the incumbent recorded aspects that were meaningful to himself or the church for future generations. For example, the register for Leicester St Mark describes the congregation’s deep shock when redundancy was proposed, and in Leicester St Leonard’s register, the vicar bitterly summarises the stages of the pastoral measure towards redundancy. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, most churches had weekday services in addition to Sunday services, but due to clerical changes and groupings of churches, these reduced over time and then generally disappeared. The totals noted for collections of financial donations at each service reveal that more people generally attended Evensong than Holy Communion, and sung Eucharist was popular in city churches. Importantly, there were gaps in the detail provided, and many missing service registers (vestry minutes are also missing for some redundant churches). Sometimes communicants and attendees were counted separately for Holy Communion services, but generally only the number of communicants was recorded. In small village churches, communicants were all those who attended the services. Small congregations were a worry for the dioceses. In 1969, Kenneth Riches, bishop of Lincoln, expressed concern about them: What we need to do is to build up Christian communities capable of influencing the neighbourhood and of helping to create standards of life. To do this it is essential that churches with five or six people meeting in them must be closed. They might be used for occasional services but certainly not as regular places of public worship, and the churches as such cannot

168

D. BONNETTE

be expected to carry the cost of preserving those buildings which, rightly, should be preserved. (Hansard 1969, cols. 421–430)

Although Riches evidently felt that small Christian congregations could not make a real contribution to the community, this was a challenge in the Lincoln Diocese which had so many tiny churches. If the bishop had acted on his words, most churches on the diocese’s redundant church list would have closed long before they did. By contrast, ten years later, in the Leicester Diocese, Bishop Richard Rutt published details of closures of poorly supported churches (Leicester Mercury 1980). He thought that only half a dozen churches would eventually close, adding that it was ‘unlikely that churches with congregations of more than ten would lose their service’.

Patterns of Behaving It is difficult to class any Sunday as normal, but for any long-term comparison with the 1851 Religious Census, it is most useful to take figures for services closest to 30 March, although Davies et al. (1991, p. 209) use four consecutive Sundays in October for their analysis. It is possible to consider only broad patterns of worship and communicants’ attendance at individual churches, and it must be emphasised that there are many variations in and difficulties with the service register data. In rural churches, when in a plurality or group, individual congregations tended to attend Holy Communion services at their own local parish church and sometimes join Evensong at their linked churches. Therefore, attendance at Evensong was generally slightly better, for example, Cumberworth had an average communicant attendance of four at Holy Communion and an average attendance at Evensong of around six. Thus, communicant numbers in Table 5.2 are conservative but only slightly and give an indication of the patterns of attendance. It shows that rural redundant churches in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire had experienced slight rises and falls in communicant numbers over the decades, with rarely more than ten and very often fewer than five. All made changes to service patterns to tackle their difficulties with clergy vacancies, pluralities or because of the different theology of the incumbent. Many reduced the number of opportunities for Evensong, which certainly had a negative impact on collections. The chequered history of the now redundant Waithe church is a telling example.

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

169

Table 5.2 Average communicant numbers for rural redundant churches in the dioceses of Lincoln and Leicester9 1931–40 Lincolnshire Wispington Normanby Snarford Wood End Muckton Kingerby Cumberworth Little Carlton Authorpe Chapel Hill Nth. Ormsby Sotby Waithe Maltby LM Amber Hill Leicestershire Stretton Willesley Beeby

1941–50

1951–60

4

6 12 4 7

7 7 12

4 4 9 8 7 5 7 7 7 5 5 10

5 14 4 4 5 7 4 7 10 7 10 5 7 6 13

5 6 3 3 8 20

5 2 6 9 14

8 12

8 4

5 8 5

6 7

6 7

4 10 6 6 7

1961–70 1971–80

7 4 9

Closed Closed 4 Closed Closed Closed 4 8 8

1981–90

1991–0

Closed

Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed 6 10

Closed Closed Closed

Closed Closed

Sources Lincoln Archives: Driby PAR/19/1; Wispington PAR/19/2. In 1953 there were services when no-one attended; Normanby PAR/19/2; Wood Enderby PAR/19/1; Muckton PAR/19/2; Kingerby PAR/19/1; Cumberworth PAR/19/1 and 2; Little Carlton PAR/19/2 and 3; Authorpe PAR/19/1 and 2; Chapel Hill PAR/19/2; North Ormsby PAR/19/1; Sotby PAR/19/1; Waithe PAR/19/1 and 2; Maltby Le Marsh PAR/19/1, 2 and 3; Amber Hill PAR/19/1–4; Snarford PAR/19/2; ROLLR: Stretton DE3153/1; Willesley DE5093/1and 5, DE4540; Beeby DE4589/3

Waithe is a tiny hamlet in East Lindsey, Lincolnshire, and there were four other churches within three miles. The Victorian Gothic, Romanesque church, now vested in the CCT, was rebuilt in 1861 by James Fowler and was infamously compared to a public toilet by John Betjeman.10 Between 1955 and 1958, services were held every Sunday, one matins, one mass and two Evensong. It attracted an average of seven communicants, which was just over 14% of the total population. In 1958, services were reduced to three a month, losing an Evensong. In 1961, the population fell to 32, the number of services was reduced to two per month, an Evensong and a Holy Communion, and the average number of communicants was three. By 1967, Evensong was held every other

170

D. BONNETTE

month, and the other services were Holy Communion. At the end of the decade, despite a slight growth in the population from 32 to 36, services were reduced to one a month and average communicant numbers were six (16% of the population). In 1970, there were no services because the incumbency was vacant. In 1971, a new incumbent was appointed with responsibility for three churches in the area, and he re-established two services a month. The average number of communicants remained six between 1971 and 1981, even though the population fell by eight. The vicar left in 1982, and the subsequent incumbent reduced the number of services to between five and nine a year until 1994, when the church closed informally and was ‘left to decay’.11 A small group of parishioners seem to have demonstrated their belonging and remained loyal to the parish church for some considerable time, despite constant changes to service patterns. In urban areas (Table 5.3), the redundant churches of Lincoln St Mark (built 1871) and Grimsby All Saints (built 1904) had higher, though declining, communicant numbers. At Grimsby St Paul, numbers grew during the early 1960s and only declined in the late 1960s, when the vicar left because the surrounding area was demolished.12 Lincoln St Mark had low communicant numbers compared to the population from the beginning of the century. It was part of a city-centre reorganisation proposed in 1958 owing to the reducing population and proximity to medieval St Mary-le-Wigford. The building was also on ‘one of the most valuable church sites in the city, and the proceeds of the sale would be of great help towards the building of new churches on the outskirts of the city’ (Lincoln Diocesan Pastoral Reorganisation Committee 1958, p. 24). This is even though the vicar, Canon Oswald Jones was a popular preacher and had transformed the church in the community, making an impact on church attendance. The diocese considered that ‘once the personal ties are severed, we feel that the members of its congregation would worship in churches nearer home’ (p. 24). The redundant Leicester city churches also had very low communicant numbers for many years. Congregations fluctuated; some grew during the 1960s, but all were under 35 by the time the churches closed. In Leicester, a comparison can be made with churches that were not redundant. In the large Christianity South deanery, Sunday attendance figures in 1987 reveal considerable variation but all higher than the closed city churches (Table 5.4). In relation to the total population of the 15 combined parishes in the deanery (136,433 people), around 1.6%

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

171

Table 5.3 Average communicant numbers for urban redundant churches in the dioceses of Leicester and Lincoln 1931–40 Lincoln Grimsby All Saints Lincoln St Mark Leicester St Leonard All Souls All Saints Aylestone St James St Matthew St Mark Belgrave St Michael

11

1941–50

1951–60

1961–70

1971–80

1981–90

70

63

54

45

25

65

49

Closed

42

61

50

29

Closed

25 9 22

34 11 37

24 15 44

25 11 34

Closed Closed Closed

64

30

35

Closed

32 No info

44 No info

No info No info

Closed 43

1991–0

Closed

40

40

53

50

Sources ROLLR, St Leonard DE2244/27–33, DE2264/2; All Souls DE3318/1 and 6–10; All Saints DE2430/22; Aylestone St James DE3628/12 and 13; St Matthew 3D71/91–94; St Mark DE1752/32–35, DE4003; Belgrave St Michael DE2657/17–23 and DE4002/4: LA: Grimsby All Saints PAR/19/8–10; Lincoln St Mark PAR/19/2–4

attended church on a Sunday. However, Holy Trinity and St Mary de Castro continued to attract more worshippers from outside their parishes. Holy Trinity had a popular evangelical churchmanship and St Mary was an ancient parish church. Seven churches had an average Sunday attendance of just less than one per cent of the parish population. This is considerably lower than the 2.2% identified by Gill (Gill 2003, p. 247). Traditional Easter and Christmas services were always well attended by many more communicants than those who worshipped each Sunday. This may indicate that parishioners retained an intrinsic religious belief but did not see the need to attend church regularly, or that going to church at these times was a social expectation. In the 1950s, Authorpe St Margaret, Lincolnshire normally had nine or ten communicants for Sunday services, apart from the Easter service when the number rose to 21.13 In 1972, communicant numbers had declined to between six and eight people at normal Sunday services, but 18 attended Easter services. Again, this may

172

D. BONNETTE

Table 5.4 Average Sunday attendance in Leicester Christianity South Deanery churches, 1987 Average Sunday attendance 1987 Centre St Nicholas (Med.) Holy Trinity (1838) St Margaret (Med.) St Mary de Castro (Med.) West Leicester St Paul, Westcotes (1871—since closed) The Martyrs, Narborough Road (1890) St Augustine, Fosse Rd (1889—since closed) Holy Apostles (1924) /St Oswald, Fosse Road South Leicester Knighton St John (1885) St Andrew, Jarrom Street (1862) Council Estates St Christopher, Saffron Lane Estate (1928) St Hugh, Eyres Monsell Estate (1958) St Aiden, New Parks Estate (1959)

54 408 78 90 72 115 46 148 95 33 59 42 40

Source ROLLR, DE6095/19, Christianity Deanery papers

have been a consequence of the growing number of pluralities, where several churches shared an incumbent. As the incumbent moved from church to church, congregations met jointly in one church for special services such as Easter. Figures for city churches that were subsequently made redundant differed significantly between Easter and normal Sunday services and declined over time. In Leicester, All Souls had an average of 27 communicants at Sunday services between 1906 and 1915, compared with 182 communicants at the Easter service in 1914, 146 in 1944 and 107 in 1953. In 1964, just 52 attended the Easter service. St Matthew had 248 Easter communicants in 1934, which had reduced to 81 by 1952. However, St Mark’s figures told a different story, as at Easter 1955 there were 81 communicants, rising to 126 by 1964. Unfortunately, the service register is missing for the next decade, making it difficult to tell whether this was sustained. Lincoln St Mark had around 49 regular communicants on Sunday, just prior to closure. It attracted 232 people to three Easter services in 1959, 200 in 1961, and this declined to 141 in 1964. By 1969 it had declined to 111, although this was over twice

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

173

the usual number of Sunday communicants. Most churches in Leicester Christianity South that were not made redundant by 1987 showed a rise in attendance at Easter and Christmas services. St Mary Magdalene, an ancient church in the Knighton area attacted an additional 430 worshippers at Christmas, whereas the isolated ancient St Margaret maintained almost the same attendance at Christmas (74) that it had on an average Sunday (78). Other factors that affected churches included the publication of Faith in the City (Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas 1985), which initiated the transfer of resources from rural to urban churches and weakened rural churches (Roberts 2003). PM1983 may have reminded cash-strapped dioceses that redundancy processes were available to them. More mundane factors also affected regular attendance, such as the weather, and lack of heating or lighting (Davies et al. 1991, p. 231). For example, in the early 1960s, Haceby parishioners wanted to buy a blue flame cabinet heater to replace the stovepipe, and until they could afford one, they met in a local house for all winter services.14 Years later, the vicar of Amber Hill, Lincolnshire recorded the following notice in the service register in December 1990: Owing to a diminishing congregation and the impossibility of keeping warm it was decided not to hold any more services in the church until Holy Week. In the meantime the congregation will attend Holland Fen church.15

The specific circumstances of each congregation therefore merit more historical attention than afforded by the standard historiography. In Leicester, the religious context was rapidly changing and the increasing number of people from non-Christian faiths had an influence on Anglican church redundancy.

The Impact of Increasing Religious Diversity Debate continues whether Britain is more or less religious because of the growing number of other incoming faiths, and whether net migration has been at the expense of Christianity (Bruce, 2013; Woodhead 2016). Nationally, between 1968 and 2000 only 23 churches cited diversity as a reason for closure (Table 5.5). Five were Grade II* listed and 16 were built in the nineteenth century, and many of these churches were also

174

D. BONNETTE

too large for their parish population. Leicester is a particularly interesting example since it cited the highest number of churches closed because of the diversity of the population, although there were only four, three of them in the Belgrave area of the city. Lincoln had none. Migrants came to Leicester in response to the post-war demand for labour, but myth and prejudice greeted their arrival and led to a period of intense racial tension. There was no national planning for the arrival of African Caribbeans in the 1950s, and Leicester City Council (LCC) was equally unprepared (Chessum 2017, p. 110). Because of LCC housing polices and local racism, African Caribbeans could not become council tenants in the city centre and therefore settled mainly in the Highfields area. Many were from Christian backgrounds, and some found the worship in Anglican churches dull and lifeless in comparison with the vibrant church culture of their home countries (Pearson 1978). They experienced racism, not only from their new neighbours, but also in the local Anglican churches they attempted to attend. Although many did join, the Church of England lost potential members because black-led Pentecostal churches were set up as alternatives (Howard 1987, p. 31). When Ugandan Asians were ordered out of their country by Idi Amin in 1972, LCC placed a warning advertisement in the Ugandan Argus: Table 5.5 Churches made redundant nationally, citing diversity as a reason, 1968–2000 Diocese Birmingham Blackburn Bradford Chelmsford Durham Leicester Litchfield London Manchester Southwell Wakefield Winchester Total

1970s

1980s

1990s

1 1 1

2 1 1 1

1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2

11

1 2 1 1 10

Source Extracted from the Church of England, Closed Churches Statistical Database, 2007

Total 3 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 23

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

175

‘In your own interests and those of your family you should accept the advice of the Uganda Resettlement Board and not come to Leicester’ (Troyna and Ward 1981, p. 463). The city was deemed to be the most unwelcoming in the country and became a showcase for the National Front (Rodger and Madgin 2016, p. 338). By 1976, Leicester electorate afforded more support to the National Front than anywhere else in Britain (The Times 1976). There were racist confrontations in the city in 1979, and riots in Highfields in 1981. However, in the early 1980s a radical Labour council emerged that embraced anti-racism and began shifting attitudes to ethnic minorities in the city. The city’s cultural context changed completely and influenced the Anglican church’s social presence. The newcomers set about creating their own community networks and focused on retaining their religious distinctiveness by establishing their own places of worship. This was a challenge for Leicester, as each neighbourhood began to develop with distinct ethnic and faith groups (for more detail, see Hussain et al. 2003). Attracted by private housing schemes and new council estates in the suburbs, the white English population was beginning to move out of certain districts as ethnic minorities moved in. At least half of the populations of Belgrave, Crown Hills, Rushey Mead and Spinney Hills were Asian (Fig. 5.1). The Belgrave area had previously been predominantly white working class, but house values had dropped due to radical plans for new roads, and some homes were awaiting demolition by the council. Arrivals to the city were accommodated in these unwanted houses, but this did not please local people. ‘Belgrave is also crying “Enough” in respect of immigrants in their area’, bellowed the Leicester Mercury (1972a), and a Belgrave resident announced that ‘Leicester is proud of its heritage and immigrants must not be allowed to smother any part of the city’ (Leicester Mercury 1972b). However, ‘settlement of migrant populations in the old industrial neighbourhoods encircling the central area breathed new life into houses and streets that suffered the effects of planning blight and underinvestment’ (Gunn and Hyde 2013, p. 108). The Guardian agreed, praising improvements to the area and calling them ‘Idi Amin’s gift to Belgrave Road’, with a fulsome description of the Asian ‘Golden Mile’, which is dominated by Asian shops (The Guardian 1981). The Belgrave area became mainly Hindu: between 1972 and 1977, four Hindu places of worship were built on Belgrave Road (formerly St Mark’s vicarage), Doncaster Road (former residential), Moira Street

176

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 5.1 Areas of Leicester where immigrants settled from the 1950s onwards (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

177

(former Catholic church) and Weymouth Street (former Baptist chapel). Another was built in 1988, and four more between 1991 and 1993 (Moore 2008, pp. 58–64). Sikh temples were mainly in the Highfields area, and some of these moved more than once. For example, the Guru Tegbahadar moved three times between 1970 and 1989. The Muslim community settled mainly in Spinney Hills, Evington and parts of Highfields. Between 1967 and 1979, four Muslim mosques and prayer halls were established, with two more between 1982 and 1986, and four in 1990. Newcomers were welcomed by the local Anglican clergy. Reverend Carlisle, vicar of St Peter’s church in Highfields reportedly said that ‘the East African community … was educated, and was proficient in the professions and trades … and are very family minded’ (Leicester Mercury 1972d). Reverend Sawyer, vicar of Knighton St Michael and All Angels (demolished in 1996) and a prominent and active member of the Leicester Council of Faiths in the mid-1980s, made himself very unpopular with his own congregation by joining an anti-Immigration Bill demonstration (Leicester Mercury 1971a).16 He explained that he had taken part to show his solidarity with those suffering from oppression, and ‘to object to the tendency of many white persons to treat coloured people as so many head of black cattle to be moved at will’. He went on to accuse ‘some’ of his congregation of being ‘racialist’, which they did not appreciate. The Belgrave area had five Anglican churches very close to each other and the new non-Christian places of worship were established nearby (Fig. 5.2; see also Fig. 4.3 in Chapter 4).17 The nineteenth-century churches St Mark, St Matthew and St Michael and All Angels had a history of low communicant numbers, declining attendance, troubling finances and costly repair estimates. Thus, they were identified for closure, keeping St Gabriel and St Alban’s open. The individual PCCs did not wish to keep the church building but they did want to maintain a Christian religious presence and individual church identity in their parishes. The PCC of St Mark suggested using the church rooms as a chapel, and those at St Matthew and St Michael promoted the building of a worship centre near to the current church building. However, this did not fit with the diocesan plan, which was to use its resources more effectively and provide one centre at St Alban’s church. The diocese felt that ‘provision of too many centres of worship will militate actively against the creation of a cohesive community conscious new parish’.18 In other words, it did not want the churches to continue to compete for a congregation from a

178

D. BONNETTE

diminishing Christian population. The centre at St Alban’s would maintain an Anglican presence in Belgrave where there were too many poorly attended churches. However, this caused further tensions between the individual PCCs and the diocese. The PCCs recognised that the associated church halls also provided a focus for social events, which might draw people into the church, as well as much-needed funds. However, as elderly members of the Anglican congregations died, there were no local family members to take their place as there had been in the past (confirmation records show families worshipping in the same church for generations until the 1960s), especially children. Demographic changes ultimately made the community buildings belonging to local Anglican churches superfluous. They became too expensive to maintain and PCCs gradually began to sell them.

Fig. 5.2 Places of worship in the Belgrave area of Leicester (Source Map drawn by Dr Richard Jones)

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

179

Church halls thus became available for other faith groups to buy for their own community or religious use. St John’s church rooms and St Peter’s church hall both became Hindu places of worship. Between 1961 and 1995, 33 non-Christian places of worship and prayer halls were created across Leicester: 18 Hindu, six Sikh and nine Muslim. Three Sikh temples and three Hindu places of worship moved premises, and none were closed permanently. By the mid-1980s, a muchchanged LCC had endorsed the establishment of purpose-built places of worship, and Leicester had become an ‘Asian place’ where you could do ‘Asian things’ (Rodger and Madgin 2016, p. 341). Religious diversity was celebrated by the planners, and by the diocese, which was involved in setting up the Leicester Council of Faiths in 1986 (Peach and Gale 2003). A 1988 report (Leicester City Council 1988) identified 220 non-Anglican congregations, 60 of which did not have their own place of worship. Anglican buildings no longer required for worship could be sold but if non-Christian faiths were considered as purchasers, a range of emotion was demonstrated.

Attitudes to Non-Christian Purchasers of Redundant Churches When Anglican churches were made redundant, PM1968 allowed other Christian faiths to purchase them for use for religious worship, but members of the General Synod had divided opinions on selling redundant churches to non-Christian faiths.19 A key focus of debate was whether the presence of God was focused in particular places, such as consecrated church buildings (Kuin Lawton 2011). A working party for the British Council’s Community and Race Relations Unit (British Council of Churches 1972) proposed that consecration was for service, rather than seeing an inherent supernatural holiness in a building. This judgement was not well-received by many on the Synod, because it might lead to non-Christian faiths taking over redundant Anglican buildings, potentially undermining the Church’s mission, for the ‘cure of souls’. In a July 1973 debate, the General Synod voted on a motion to prevent non-Christian faiths from purchasing redundant churches. There was theological agreement that Christian immigrant groups should be allowed to have the churches for non-Anglican worship, but not non-Christian faiths. Even so, there was concern that ‘in certain circumstances, any such use of church buildings might embitter, rather than sweeten race relations’ (The

180

D. BONNETTE

Times 1973). The debates continued, and in 1983 a further motion to make redundant churches available to non-Christian faiths in ‘appropriate circumstances’ was defeated by 96 votes to 90 in the House of Laity (The Guardian 1983). There was some agreement that holiness was determined by use rather than being intrinsic to the fabric of the building, but also a belief that most Christians recognised certain buildings as being endowed with religious significance. Following this debate, guidelines were written for PM1983, which defined holiness as determined by use rather than as a permanent quality. Allowing other faiths to use a building was not discouraged but was not easy.20 The Faith in the City report was scathing about the divisions, writing that ‘the Church of England is seen as possessing a resource of which it can no longer make use, but which it prefers to sell to developers rather than permit members of another faith to use for worship’ (Archbishops’ Commission on Urban Priority Areas 1985, p. 152). The General Synod debated selling redundant churches to other faiths five times between 1972 and 1996. However, by 1996 only Southampton St Luke had been sold to a Sikh church against the Synod’s wishes (The Guardian 1983; for more detail, see Chandler 2006, pp. 291–294). Nationally, between 1968 and 2000, under ten per cent of redundant churches were sold to other Christian denominations. In 1987, the Leicester Synod debated on an amended motion to approve sales of its redundant churches to non-Christian faiths. The motion was defeated, but the vote was divided, with 53 voting in favour, 59 against and 11 abstentions.21 This view was reflected at Belgrave St Peter, a twelfth-century village church that had been swallowed up by a Leicester suburb. The PCC felt that Christianity was under threat: ‘In the matter of selling redundant churches, it did not favour their sale to nonChristian religious bodies which did not honour the One, True, Living God’.22 The diocese was caught between differing and changing perspectives when making decisions on city church redundancies between the early 1970s and late 1980s. The Church’s public position was that suitable and fitting uses should be found for the buildings. Local people were not necessarily happy for the churches to be taken over by nonChristian faiths, although this view was not so widespread by the 1990s. More non-Christian faiths were seeking religious accommodation, and the local authority was moving away from a previously negative stance towards religious diversity. These differing viewpoints and the resulting effects on the church building are highlighted by the redundancy of Leicester St John the

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

181

Divine. St John’s church, parsonage and school were to be surrounded by offices and have a dual carriageway built nearby. The church was recommended for closure in 1970, and despite a petition of over 500 names in 1972, was formally closed in 1974 and advertised for sale, along with its ancillary buildings. Leicester City Council (LCC) purchased the buildings in 1976, but some very restrictive covenants were imposed by the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC) to prevent certain types of reuse. Amongst a list of organisations that expressed a desire to use the redundant church were the Liberal Jewish Association, Seventh Day Adventists, Leicester Fellowship and Charnwood United Reform Church. A local Asian community, already happily settled in Highfields, also wanted the building for use as a community centre. However, most organisations on the list shelved their plans, and in 1980 LCC sought a variation to the deeds of covenant to enable other faith groups to buy the building. The ABRC approved the variation, which would permit the Oshwal Association (an East African organisation following the Jain faith) to take over the building.23 However, Richard Rutt, the bishop of Leicester, strongly disagreed with this move and rebuked the Church Commissioners for the decision, believing it to be inappropriate for non-Christian faiths to have the church (The Times 2011).24 In a further communication to the Church Commissioners, Rutt, who became chairman of the Religious Communities’ Advisory Council, indicated that he would prefer demolition over leasing to the Oshwal Association.25 Frustrated by the diocese’s views, LCC first threatened to demolish the building if the covenants were not varied, and then in 1982 sold the church for £20,000 to an auction company. This incensed a letter writer to the Leicester Mercury (1982), who claimed that the Sikhs’ offer of £30,000 for the church had been refused and demanded that the ‘cloak and dagger game’ be halted (Leicester Mercury 1982b). During this lengthy conflict, the church was broken into at least 30 times, suffering vandalism, theft and damage to the organ. Its monuments and memorials were not finally disposed of until 1987, and the building was eventually turned into flats.26 LCC vowed never again to buy a redundant Anglican church, and the diocese was clear that in future it would recommend demolition if a suitable and fitting use could not be found. The diocese’s new stance is illustrated by the redundancy of St Matthew, a huge Victorian church built by George Gilbert Scott to seat 1,250 people. When it closed in 1984, repair costs were estimated at £100,000, and the diocese wanted to demolish it to make way for a

182

D. BONNETTE

smaller worship centre. However, although the church made ‘little impact on its surroundings’, the ABRC refused demolition and expected the diocese to attempt to find an alternative use first, which would create another difficult scenario. 27 An irritated diocesan secretary commented that: There is now only one avenue open—to advertise for sale, when we may well expect some Asian groups to be interested in purchasing, to whom money sometimes appears to be no bar! In many ways we would rather demolish and sell the site if certain conservationists will let us.28

Two offers were received, one to convert the church into a Hindu wedding venue and the other from a housing association that wanted the land if the church was demolished. The first offered a higher purchase price but would have been ‘highly unlikely’ to receive diocesan approval, and the housing association proposal was accepted.29 It took some time for final arrangements to be made. While awaiting demolition, the church was broken into, and the Victorian Society accused the diocese of ‘blatant neglect’.30 To try to solve the issue, especially after the experience of Leicester St John, the city planning department offered a modest sum to support the diocese if it were more flexible about selling to non-Christian groups.31 However, in 1988 a council working party commented that: Opinion is divided in the Anglican Community and it may be that, in time, the present conviction, deeply held by many Anglicans, that consecrated church buildings should not be used for worship by people of another faith will change or cease to hold sway within the Church. (Leicester City Council 1988, p. 130)

By 1993, the diocese, under the leadership of a new bishop had changed its perspective and raised no objection to the possibility of the Oshwal Association buying Belgrave St Michael and All Angels.32 St Mark was eventually sold as a multi-cultural banqueting hall and part of St Michael became an Asian radio station. After 2000, two more Anglican churches in Belgrave were made redundant as congregation numbers continued to decline and the demographic changed. From the perspective of the Anglican communities in Belgrave, they witnessed a church being demolished, parochial community buildings being taken over for worship by people from non-Christian faiths and multi-cultural uses for the former parish churches. They felt that they had lost their Christian and parochial identity. A further troubling element of the church redundancy process

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

183

for a wider group of people than the regular churchgoers was the selling of churchyards for private use.

Churchyard Sales Churchyards were included in the sale of redundant churches, originally wholesale but eventually only parts were sold. While parishioners may not have had strong views about the sale of the building, this changed when churchyards were involved. Churchyards serve the whole community, and any parishioner is entitled to be buried there, regardless of attendance or membership. They are often situated at the centre of parish settlements as consecrated sacred spaces, set apart forever for the service of God. Churchyards have a specific character as boundaries between the living and the dead, between death space and domestic space. They represent a material connection between the deceased and the living, and even those who do not attend church believe churchyards to be hallowed ground. They are enveloped in significant ecclesiastical legislation (Rugg 2013), matters of social identity (Mytum 2006) and strong emotion (Tarlow, 2000). They are woven into community history, especially in rural areas, having been used by local families for centuries (Snell 2009). Churchyards are described as a public utility, available at the point of need because they are part of the established Church, emphasising parishioners’ sense of entitlement (Davie, 2015, p. 292). The ‘grave’s presence indicates and— at the same time—alleviates the absence of people’ (Streb et al. 2019, p. 336). Gravestones, which are intensely personal but also public, mark the locations of the deceased and enable people to express and deal with grief. According to Thomas Laqueur (2015, p. 10), people: construe the dead as social beings, as creatures who need to be eased out of the world and settled safely into the next and into memory. How this is done … is a deeply, paradigmatically, and indeed foundational part of culture.

Memoralisation is a material manifestation of a continuing bond with the deceased, showing that the dead continue to be cared for. Visiting rituals and conversations with the dead are believed to illustrate an everpresent layer of religiosity and the limits to resistance to secularisation (Stringer, 2008, p. 210). Churchyards are very important places and

184

D. BONNETTE

spaces, and responses to churchyard closures explicitly exemplify a belief in the afterlife. Churchyards are consecrated ground and, theologically, the state of consecration is permanent. They are vested in the incumbent and subject to the faculty system. This protects them against unfitting use, and subject to small exceptions, the legal effect of consecration means that no additions, removals or repairs to the fabric, ornaments or furniture can be made without a faculty.33 Even if sold, the church and churchyard remain on consecrated ground but cease to be subject to the legal effects of consecration that previously protected them.34 If a church was sold to become a dwelling, the churchyard could be subsumed into a private garden. PM1968 and PM1983 included safeguards, both stipulating that a redundant church’s churchyard could only be disposed of for development if nobody had been buried there for 50 years or, if there had been burials more recently, no relative or personal representative objected.35 This caused anxious debate in the Church Assembly in 1968, and even more in the House of Lords, because although parishioners may not have attended the church, they held deeply felt views about the consecrated churchyard (Hansard 1968). Sales of churchyards thus raised contentious issues, such as discrepancies between perception and reality in relation to public, private and sacred spaces, the fact that a churchyard could be built over and gravestones moved or removed, and the cultural notion that the physical presence of the departed could be disturbed. There was also a mistaken belief that parishioners had significant rights in any decisions to make changes to churchyards. In 1984, the rector of Louth was not opposed to the sale of North Elkington St Helen’s church, Lincolnshire, nor to it becoming a residence. However, he thought that ‘the proposed sale of the churchyard land over the heads of the parishioners presents, it seems to me, a gross invasion of their rights’.36 He had the legal authority to sanction it but questioned whether he had the moral authority. Redundancies and sales of churches were often perceived as threats to public use of places where parishioners visited for reflection, tranquillity and for personal memories (Mytum 1989). Thus, of a redundant church in Leicestershire, a parishioner said that ‘the little graveyard, too is a place to go and think on times long gone’.37 On Lincolnshire’s South Elkington churchyard, a villager mused, ‘I often visit the churchyard and take some flowers, it is quite easy during moments of reflection to hear their voices and sense all of my families [sic] presence up there’.38 For a parishioner from Toft-next-Newton in Lincolnshire, ‘it seems absurd

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

185

that anyone wishing to visit the graveyard will have to ask permission of a house owner to visit’ (Market Rasen Mail 1987). A comment by a Little Carlton parishioner shows that this concern was not unusual: Local people just don’t want someone living in their churchyard, particularly in view of the problems over access to the graves that have arisen where churches have been converted elsewhere. (Louth Standard 1983)

This parishioner and others in the community preferred the church to be demolished rather than converted into a home, so that the churchyard could be protected. Local authority councillors were also reluctant to agree to alternative use as a residence, precisely because of the discomfort about a churchyard being used as a garden.39 This caused problems in East Lindsey and led to many refusals of redundant church conversions. As a public safeguard, if new purchasers wanted to change the use of a churchyard, their proposals for dealing with any human remains and tombstones had to be published.40 Relatives could undertake the removal of human remains and dispose of tombstones, or allow the Church Commissioners to do so on their behalf, if required (Council for Care of Churches 2001).41 In some circumstances, only part of a churchyard was sold and a section retained by the PCC for continued burials. To many, selling the churchyard outright was the most shocking element of the redundancy process. Closure affected deeply ingrained attitudes and would restrict the almost physical need to continue to relate to the dead. One churchwarden interviewed offered an anecdote supporting this need for a physical connection: a local woman had been carefully buried to the right of her husband’s grave plot in the village churchyard, but the grieving family had been horrified because their mother had always slept on his left!42 Another Lincolnshire family did not approve of everyday churchyard usage. Speaking about Toft-next-Newton (formally closed in 1986), Mrs Fussey said she was distressed because ‘a septic tank was planned only seven feet from the grave of her mother, Mrs Ranby, who was buried in 1986’, only two years earlier (Market Rasen Mail 1988). Notices of sales published in national and local newspapers often alerted relatives and interested parties to the possibility of changes to the churchyard. Challenging issues about respect were raised when headstones were to be moved or human remains exhumed. The gravestones would no longer mark the precise location of the body, and historical connections would be broken. The Church Commissioners attempted

186

D. BONNETTE

to deal with the issue sensitively, but media publicity heightened parishioners’ objections and elicited complex, emotive responses. Alice Wattam, whose in-laws were buried at Sotby in Lincolnshire, accused the Church of creating a ‘legalised way of body snatching’ (Horncastle News 1982). Parishioners communicated their sense of belonging to the churchyard in their objections and expressed a religious or cultural desire to prevent disrespectful tampering with mortal remains. Another Sotby resident stressed that ‘there’s people in the village whose parents are buried there. It didn’t seem quite right to me. I’m not a religious man you understand, but it shouldn’t be a house’ (Grimsby Evening Telegraph 1991). Two Lincolnshire case studies, Cumberworth and Elkington, exemplify the complexities and range of responses relating to this type of ‘under the surface’ religiosity. The Church Commissioners received no formal local objections to the closure of Cumberworth St Helen. There had been only four regular attenders, and by the late 1970s no services were held in the church, and the roof had deteriorated so much that the sky could be seen through the nave.43 The church was not supported by the parishioners and had been left to decline. However, in the late 1980s, the formal redundancy scheme published in The Times (1989) noted that when the building was sold, the monuments were to remain in situ if the church became a home. The fate of the family headstones was not specified, and relatives wrongly assumed that all the gravestones would be moved, which provoked an emotional outcry. The Church Commissioners received several letters from irate relatives, who did not claim any personal association with the church congregation or the building but expressed strong attachment to those buried in the churchyard. ‘The English Country Churchyard is part of our heritage’, claimed one anonymous writer whose grandparents were buried in the churchyard.44 Another, who had scrawled ‘Hands off Cumberworth church and churchyard’ in capitals across an envelope, enclosed a diatribe written in red ink, claiming that the writer’s ancestors were buried there and signing off ‘yours disgustedly’.45 A similar letter from a former Cumberworth resident said that if the headstones were moved, ‘people can’t rest in peace’.46 To avoid any further correspondence, the Church Commissioners quickly assured objectors that the headstones would remain undisturbed. The thoroughness of the Church Commissioners’ review process is notable here. On checking the burial records for the name given by one letter writer, it was found that the ancestor’s grave was not in Cumberworth churchyard after all.47 Evidently, the gap between perception and reality had to be handled

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

187

carefully in local communities. This example provides novel insights into the social geography of spirituality and religious identities. North Elkington St Helen, Lincolnshire became embroiled in conflict about a public churchyard becoming a private garden.48 This case exemplifies confusion about the meaning of consecrated ground, illustrates parishioners’ feeling of entitlement and demonstrates the depth of emotion surrounding the issue. The church closed informally in 1971, and in 1984 the redundant church, including the whole churchyard, (which remained open for burial) was sold to become a residence, eliciting no formal objections.49 Unfortunately, just five months prior to sale, a burial had mistakenly taken place when the rector was on holiday. The new owners were given permission to move headstones that had been in situ for over 25 years to the boundary of the garden but this would leave more recent headstones in place. The ensuing media coverage, under the headline ‘Graveyard will be in the garden’, provoked a particularly unpleasant and emotive response (Louth Leader 1984). Correspondence arrived from a complainant, who was ‘distressed beyond measure’ that ‘any burials would be in somebody’s garden’.50 Two families wanted to visit their family graves in perpetuity, and ultimately to be buried in the churchyard themselves, as they wrongly believed they had already purchased a burial plot, even though purchase was not permitted under ecclesiastical legislation. One family’s strength of feeling compelled them to have a relative’s body exhumed and transferred to a local cemetery. It was not the churchyard’s religious location that mattered here, but its geographical proximity, enabling the family to visit when they wished. A threat was made to involve the local MP if the headstones did not remain upright rather than be laid around the boundary.51 Parishioners also assumed automatic right of access to the churchyard and were upset by a misunderstanding on the part of the new owners, who believed that the garden graveyard had been deconsecrated. This was written on a notice attached to the padlocked gate, which also, not unreasonably, asked visitors to make prior appointments in view of increasingly hostile attempts to gain access to the churchyard. The owners became the subject of at least ten newspaper articles, which reported that the churchyard had been ‘ravaged’ (Louth Standard 1985).52 The raised emotions and the time taken to deal with the issues led the diocese to decide no longer to include the whole churchyard in future sales, and to retain sections for future burial use.

188

D. BONNETTE

Older gravestones could be included in sales and became similarly emblematic, although not everyone was as emotionally affected. At Manton St Hibald, Lincolnshire, a section of the churchyard remained when the church was converted into a dwelling. The gravestones were moved to the side, no-one was upset and ‘only the odd person visits’.53 Many churchyards were not well cared for by their community either. For instance, at the redundant church of Tothill, the churchyard was in a poor state: ‘bindweed wreaths the leaning tombs, the messages unreadable and unread beneath their coat of lichen’ (Evening Telegraph 1977). The graveyards of redundant churches often evoke strong poignancy, and once the churches are no longer in use, they may be forgotten. Churchyards were regarded as public utilities, and gravestones and grave plots as personal property. Although consecration was not fully understood, there was a sense that people were permanently buried in the community churchyard, and that disturbing a grave was a cultural offence.

Conclusion During a period when demand for Christian places of worship decreased, there was a superfluity of religious choice in both dioceses, mainly because of overbuilding, rebuilding and restoration in the nineteenth century. Nonconformist denominations, particularly in rural areas were vying for congregations from a small pool of prospective worshippers. In the city, the churches offered distinctive churchmanship, the experience of worshipping in an ancient building, or perhaps a charismatic preacher, and they were close enough together to be able to choose the most appealing. Thus, worshippers were ‘choosy’ as Davie identified (2015) and this adversely affected the churches that were eventually made redundant. Ultimately all Christian denominations were forced to rationalise, although the Nonconformist denominations made closure decisions more quickly than the dioceses, who appeared reluctant to do this formally. In ‘radical’ Leicester, the twentieth century saw growing numbers arriving from other faith groups which changed the city’s religious make-up and ultimately affected the future of Anglican churches (Monteith 2014; Bonney 2003; Nash and Reeder; Gunn and Hyde 2013).54 Gill (2003), Roberts (2003) and Percy (2013) amongst others were right to question the use of overall data. An examination of individual

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

189

church records demonstrates a huge variety in the quality of data collection and offers a more detailed understanding of what was happening in the two dioceses. Traditional measures of belonging and behaving show that urban churches that were made redundant had lower numbers on electoral rolls and lower communicant numbers than other local churches. The number of Easter communicants in these churches was much higher than usual Sunday figures, but it also declined over time. No sharp reduction in numbers is discernible in the 1960s (Brown 2009; McLeod 2000), except where local populations declined radically as a result of dramatic housing changes (see Chapter 4). Redundant rural churches in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire had consistently low communicant figures that fluctuated slightly for many decades. Thus, there was much continuity as well as discontinuity. Most rural congregations and some urban congregations are likely to have had a relatively elderly age profile, resulting in weaker childhood socialisation into churchgoing (Crockett and Voas 2006). Service patterns also changed as the number of incumbents declined and churches were grouped but they did not necessarily close. It was during the 1980s that the Church of England suffered from more strategic financial issues, unwise investments and lack of funding for enhanced clergy pensions, which led to greater difficulty in funding struggling churches to keep them open. The Leicester Diocese did use empirical means to identify churches in the city that should be closed (Thompson 1970) and made the most practical choices according to attendance data, apart from the notable exception of ancient churches. In a changing religious context, it believed people were unlikely to miss the churches that were demolished and would worship elsewhere. Despite all the challenges, low communicant numbers in rural churches did not inevitably lead to immediate closure and city churches were kept open while numbers were declining. There was clearly a sense of belonging and loyalty to a specific church felt by the Anglican community. Rural churches sustained a small band of devoted worshippers, despite grouping with other churches because individual church identity was important to them. City worshippers also demonstrated a desire to keep their individual church identity, although this did not necessarily mean that they wanted to continue in the church building, just maintain a Christian religious presence in the parish. Joining other churches, particularly if they were a distance from home was not appealing and created tensions between the congregations and the dioceses.

190

D. BONNETTE

Use of redundant churches or associated parochial buildings by nonChristian faiths divided opinion both in the Anglican community and in the localities and created dilemmas for the diocese. Generally, people in Leicester developed a more positive attitude over time to the growing number of ethnic minorities who brought a different religious context. But the Anglican community did not change its views, even when the diocese shifted its stance. Non-Christian faiths did not challenge the already declining Anglican churches in specific areas of the city. However, in Belgrave, the sacred church buildings being used for secular purposes and former church halls being taken over by non-Christian faiths was a visible reminder of Christian decline. The huge growth in non-Christian places of worship replaced the Christian social presence and gave the perception of the city being more religious overall as Woodhead (2016) suggests. However, it did not offset the decline in Christian worship (Bruce 2013). The churchyard issue is complex and intriguing. In some ways, it evidences the ‘danger of unintended consequences’ of church closure. It very quickly became bound up with ingrained attitudes about the dead. This should not necessarily be viewed as a faith-related belief being upheld, but it does indicate that a more secular society maintains deepfelt respect for the dead and ambivalence about disturbing loved ones, neighbours and friends (Laqueur 2015). It could also illustrate how an implicit belief may become more explicit because of personal connections with the dead and buried (Davie 2007). Although the dead do not have physical agency, they continue to have significant reality for many people. Regardless of faith, parishioners viewed churchyards as public utilities, which like the churches, they felt belonged to the people rather than to the Church of England. The issue of churchyard closures is therefore an important historical prism through which to examine cultures and faith and the extent to which belief systems have intergenerational value. These cultural features of faith require a more subtle and nuanced approach than studying church statistics in isolation. This period in history was one of rapid and radical social change and geographical location, urban or rural mattered if a church was to survive. Historical and architectural value were also important indicators for the survival of a church building and are explored in detail in the next chapter.

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

191

Notes 1. LA, PAR/5/1 Driby vestry minutes, 1972–8. For thorough descriptions of nonconformity in Lincolnshire, see Ambler 1994, 2000. 2. The council has published a series of useful booklets about Nonconformist chapels in different parts of Lincolnshire. In the west of East Lindsey, beyond the Wolds, there were more freeholders and fewer Nonconformist places of worship. 3. LA, PAR/20/1 Withern St Margaret, 22 July 1952. 4. Two of the Anglican churches were re-builds of old iron churches. 5. LA, PAR/20/2 Redbourne St Andrew, PCC minutes, 1933–56. 6. All Saints, All Souls, St Andrew, St George, Holy Trinity, St John, St Leonard, St Margaret, St Mark, St Mary, St Matthew, St Nicholas. 7. ROLLR, DE3386/15 Leicester All Souls, electoral roll, 1966–87. 8. ROLLR, DE5799/3 Leicester All Souls, vestry minutes, 6 January 1981 and January 1982. 9. The numbers are rounded up or down. They are an indicator rather than absolute figures, as in some cases, where there were no figures, the closest normal Sunday service was used or the pattern extracted from a longerterm analysis of the register. 10. CC, RC21/323B7 Waithe St Martin. 11. CC, RC323B7 Waithe St Martin, letter from Church Commissioners to the Diocese, 26 November 1999. 12. LA, PAR/19/1 Grimsby St Paul, service register. 13. LA, PAR/19/2 Authorpe St Margaret, register of services, 1949–82. 14. LA, PAR 20 Haceby, 10 October 1960. 15. LA, PAR/19/4 Amber Hill, service register, 31 December 1990. 16. The Immigration Act (c.77, 1971) was introduced by the Conservative government under Edward Heath to stop large-scale permanent immigration to Britain. 17. Four Methodist churches also closed in the Belgrave area between 1967 and 1994. 18. ROLLR, DE8767 Belgrave St Michael, minutes of Leicester North c. 1983. 19 PM1968, S.51(8). Christian groups had to be members or associate or official observers at British or World Council of Churches, or qualified to be members. 20. CC guidelines PM1983, (iv): ‘In the light of the unique revelation of God in Jesus Christ, use for worship by adherents of a non-Christian faith is not to be regarded as an evidently suitable use which a diocesan uses committee should seek or prefer to other types of use. If, nevertheless, a case arises where the committee with the clear support of the bishop would wish the Commissioners to consider such a proposal, then, in such

192

21.

22. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34.

35.

D. BONNETTE

a case, the Commissioners will judge the suitability of the proposed use on its merits taking into account all the relevant circumstances.’. Leicester Diocesan Synod Debate, 1987. The diocese risked breaching the Race Relations Act (c.74, 1976) unless there was objective and reasonable justification. ROLLR, DE6849/1 Belgrave St Peter, PCC meeting, 20 October 1987. CC, RC19/117 Letter to Bishop of Leicester from Redundant Churches Committee (RCC), 30 July 1980. Richard Rutt was a bishop in the Catholic tradition. He spent 20 years as a missionary in Korea, was a war-time code breaker and a notable knitter. He was strongly against the ordination of women. On his retirement in 1990 he was commended by the chairman of the Leicester Council of Faiths for his contribution to inter-faith work. He was received into the Catholic Church in 1994. CC, RC19/117. Reply to RCC, 8 October 1980. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048) Box 4 Church Commissioners RCC minutes, September 1982. CC, RC19/130AY Leicester St Matthew, CCC report, May 1980. CC, RC19/130AY Leicester St Matthew. CC, RC19/130AY Leicester St Matthew. CC, RC19/130AY Leicester St Matthew. CC, RC19/130AY Leicester St Matthew. CC, RC19/130 Belgrave St Michael. Legislation governing the churchyard is almost exclusively ecclesiastical. A parishioner has a legal right to be buried in a Church of England parish churchyard but does not have a right to erect a memorial, although if one is erected, responsibility for the headstone lies with the owner of the grave space or the headstone. Once the legal effects of consecration have been removed, a deconsecration ceremony can be conducted to mark the end of the special character of the building, but this does not remove the spiritual effect of consecration; it brings the land or building within the faculty jurisdiction of the consistory court of the diocese. Canon P15 prohibits a church from being ‘profaned by any meeting therein for temporal objects inconsistent with the sanctity of place’. For a broader discussion of consecration and churchyards, see Giesen (2013). If a church is ancient, consecration is presumed. However, Peterborough Diocese deconsecrated two cemetery sites in 1995 (Pearson et al. 2013, p. 148). PM1968, S.30 & S.51, notwithstanding the Disused Burial Grounds Act (47 & 48 Vict. 72, 1884), which prohibits the erection of buildings on disused burial grounds. Rugg (2000) elaborates on the sacred nature of the churchyard, linking it with ownership and purpose. The Disused Burial

5

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

193

Grounds (Amendment) Act (c.18, 1981) deals with wholesale removal of remains., S.30 & S.51. CC, RC21/283B Letter, 14 December 1984. CC, RC19/232B Letter of complaint to the Church Commissioners, 29 April 1987. www.rodcollins.com, forum for old churches in Lincolnshire (accessed 5 January 2016). CC, RC21/283B, North Elkington St Helen, meeting of Advisory Board and East Lindsey District Councillors, 8 August 1986. PM1968, S.65 & Schedule 6 provide for churchyards that have been used for burials to be appropriated for another use. Notices must be published, as appropriate, setting out proposals for dealing with human remains and tombstones, and drawing attention to the right of any relatives to undertake removal of remains and disposal of tombstones themselves in a manner other than that set out in the notice. Commissioners may also include in any closure scheme (or a pastoral scheme under S.46 or S.47 of PM1968) provisions dealing with all or part of the land annexed to a redundant church that is to be appropriated for a new use or demolished. Information from former churchwarden, 12 January 2016. CC, RC21/9 Minutes, 4 September 1984. CC, RC21/9 Letter, 27 June 1989. CC, RC21/9 Letter, 25 June 1989. CC, RC21/9 Letter, 7 July 1989. There was similar hostility to plans for the HS2 railway, affecting three sites containing about 91,000 burials (Daily Mail 2022). Transforming burial grounds into parks and gardens was not a new concept and had previously been acceptable (see Thorsheim 2011); Goody and Poppi (1994) compare laying flowers in Anglican burial grounds with European practices. CC, RC21/283B North Elkington St Helen. CC, RC21/283B Letter to CCs, 25 July 1984. CC, RC21/283B Letter to CCs, 25 July 1984; letter from villager, 5 September 1986. CC, RC21/283B North Elkington St Helen, letter from owner, 22 July 1986. Information from former churchwarden, 12 January 2016. Stark and Finke (2000, p. 257) suggest that competition increases success and the effort to compete pays off.

194

D. BONNETTE

References Archival sources CC, RC19/117 Letter to bishop of Leicester from Redundant Churches Committee (RCC), 30 July 1980, and reply to RCC, 8 October 1980. CC., RC19/130 Belgrave St Michael. CC, RC19/130AY Leicester St Matthew, CCC report, May 1980. CC, RC19/232B Hoton St Leonard, letter 29 April 1987. CC, RC21/9 Anderby with Cumberworth, vestry minutes, 4 September 1984; letters dated 25 June, 27 June and 7 July 1989. CC, RC21/283B North Elkington St Helen. CC, RC21/352 Redbourne St Andrew. LA, D&C/LIB/23 (Acc.1996/048) Box 4 Church Commissioners RCC minutes, September 1982. LA, PAR/19/1 Grimsby St Paul, service register. LA, PAR/19/2 Authorpe St Margaret, register of services, 1949–82. LA, PAR/19/4 Amber Hill, service register, 31 December 1990. LA, PAR 20 Haceby. LA, PAR/20/1 Withern St Margaret, 22 July 1952. LA, PAR/5/1 Driby vestry minutes. LA, PAR/20/2 Redbourne St Andrew, vestry minutes, 21 March 1949. CC, RC21/70 Brauncewell All Saints, January 1974. CC, RC21/323B7 Waithe St Martin. CC, RC21/419 St Michael Stamford, letter to Kesteven County Planning Officer, 26 November 1973. ROLLR, DE3386/15 Leicester All Souls, electoral roll, 1966–87. ROLLR, DE6849/1 Belgrave St Peter, PCC meeting, 20 October 1987. ROLLR, DE8767 Belgrave St Michael, minutes of Leicester North c. 1983. ROLLR, DE5799/3 Leicester All Souls, vestry minutes, 6 January 1981 and January 1982.

Published sources Ambler, R.W. 2000. Churches, Chapels and the Parish Communities of Lincolnshire 1660–1900. History of Lincolnshire Committee: Lincoln. Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas. 1985. Faith in the City: A Call for Action by Church and Nation. London: Church House. Archbishops’ Commission. 1960. Redundant Churches Report 1958–60. London: Archbishops’ Commission. Benson, P., and J. Roberts. 2002. Counting Sheep: Attendance Patterns and Pastoral Strategy. Cambridge: Grove Books.

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

195

Bonney, R. 2003. Understanding and Celebrating Religious Diversity: The Growth of Diversity in Leicester’s Places of Religious Worship since 1970. Leicester: University of Leicester. British Council of Churches. 1972. The Use of Church Property for Community Activities in Multi-Racial Areas. London: Community and Race Relations Unit Working Party. Brown, C.G. 2009. The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800–2000. Oxford: Routledge. Bruce, S. 2013. Secularisation and church growth in the United Kingdom. Journal of Religion in Europe 6: 273–296. Bruce, S., and T. Glendenning. 2010. When was secularization? Dating the decline of the British churches and locating its cause. The British Journal of Sociology 61: 107–125. Burton, L. 2007. Church closure and membership statistics: A Methodist perspective. Rural Theology 5: 125–136. Catterall, C. 2016. Labour and the Free Churches, 1918–39: Radicalism, Righteousness and Religion. London: Bloomsbury. Chandler, A. 2006. The Church of England in the Twentieth Century: The Church Commissioners and the Politics of Reform 1948–1998. Woodbridge: Boydell. Chessum, L. 2017. From Immigrants to Ethnic Minority: Making Black Community in Britain. Oxford: Routledge. Coffey, J. 2001. Secularisation: Is it inevitable? Cambridge Papers 10: 1–4. Council for Care of Churches. 2001. Responsible Care for Churchyards: A Practical Guide for Parishes. London: Church House. Crockett, A., and D. Voas. 2006. Generations of decline: Religious change in 20th-century Britain. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 45: 567–584. Currie, R., A. Gilbert, and L. Horsley. 1977. Churches and Churchgoers: Patterns of Church Growth in the British Isles since 1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daily Mail. 2014. HS2 route will destroy graves. Daily Mail, 2 June. Davie, G. 2006. Religion in Europe in the 21st century: The factors to take into account. European Journal of Sociology 47: 271–296. Davie, G. 2015. Establishment. In Oxford Handbook of Anglican Studies, ed. M. D. Chapman, S. D. Clark and M. Percy, chapter 20. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, D., C. Watkins and M. Winter. 1991. Church and Religion in Rural England. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Evening Telegraph. 1977. The church which time has passed sadly by. Evening Telegraph, 28 July. Field, C.D. 2008. A shilling for Queen Elizabeth: The era of state regulation of church attendance in England, 1552–1969. Journal of Church and State 50 (213): 213–253.

196

D. BONNETTE

Field, C.D. 2019. Periodizing Secularization: Religious Allegiance and Attendance in Britain, 1880–1945. Oxford: OUP. Giesen, M., ed. 2013. Curating Human Remains: Caring for the Dead in the United Kingdom. Woodbridge: Boydell. Gill, R. 2003. The Empty Church Revisited. Aldershot: Ashgate. Goody, J., and C. Poppi. 1994. Flowers and bones: Approaches to the dead in Anglo-American and Italian cemeteries. Comparative Studies on Society and History 36: 146–175. Grimsby Evening Telegraph. 1991. St Peter’s souls saved for £1,500. Grimsby Evening Telegraph, 15 July. Gunn, S., and C. Hyde. 2013. Post-industrial place, multi-cultural space: The transformation of Leicester, c.1970–1990. International Journal of Regional and Local History 8: 94–111. Hansard. 1968. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 13 May 1968. Hansard 292, cols. 2–25. Horncastle News. 1982. Anger over sale of graveyard. Horncastle News, 18 November. Howard, V. 1987. A Report on Afro-Caribbean Christianity in Britain. Leeds: University of Leeds Press. Hussain, A., T. Haq, and B. Law. 2003. Integrated Cities: Exploring the Cultural Development of Leicester. Leicester: University of Leicester Press. Kuin Lawton, T. H. N. 2011. Defender of faith: Is there an Anglican theology of religious pluralism – The Church of England and other faiths, 1966–96. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bristol. Laqueur, T. 2015. The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains. Woodstock: Princeton University Press. Leary, W. 1970. Lincolnshire Methodist Chapels Now Closed, Vol.1. Lincoln: W. Leary. Leicester Mercury. 1971a. Church worshippers attack vicar for his views on immigrants. Leicester Mercury, 3 April. Leicester Mercury. 1972a. Belgrave is also crying ‘enough’. Leicester Mercury, 21 July. Leicester Mercury. 1972b. Resist threats from Uganda. Leicester Mercury, 7 August. Leicester Mercury. 1980. Churches facing closure shock. Leicester Mercury, 12 December. Leicester Mercury. 1982a. Happy to see their church go. Leicester Mercury, 6 January. Leicester Mercury. 1982b. Letters. Leicester Mercury, 18 February. Leicester City Council. 1988. Places of Worship in Leicester 1987: Report of the Working Party on Sites and Buildings for Places of Worship. Leicester: Leicester City Council.

5

PERSONAL RELIGIOSITY: BELONGING, BELIEVING …

197

Lincoln Diocesan Pastoral Re-organisation Committee. 1958. The Parishes and Churches of Lincoln. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln. Lincoln Diocese. 1968. Into Tomorrow: A Report on the Pastoral ReOrganisation. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln. Lincolnshire County Council. 2013. Nonconformist Chapels in East Lindsey. Lincolnshire County Council: Lincoln. Louth Leader. 1984. Graveyard will be in the garden. Louth Leader, 24 October. Louth Standard. 1983. Church clash on the cards. Louth Standard, 26 August. Louth Standard. 1985. Criticism ‘unfair’ - claim. Louth Standard, 6 September. McLeod, D.H. 2000. Secularisation in Western Europe, 1848–1914. London: Palgrave. Market Rasen Mail. 1987. Concerned over sale of church. Market Rasen Mail, 18 July. Market Rasen Mail. 1988. Anger over plans to turn church into dwelling. Market Rasen Mail, 20 February. Monteith, Very Revd. D. 2014. Faith in the city: Provost Derek Hole keynote lecture. Leicester, 27 March. Moore, A. 2008. Where Leicester has Worshipped. Leicester: Laural House. Mytum, H. 1989. Public health and private sentiment: The development of cemetery architecture and funerary monuments from the eighteenth century onwards. World Archeology 21: 283–297. Mytum, H. 2006. Popular attitudes to memory, the body, and social identity: The rise of external commemoration in Britain, Ireland and New England. Post-Medieval Archaeology 40: 96–110. Nash, D., and D. Reeder, eds. 1993. Leicester in the Twentieth Century. Stroud: Sutton. Neville, G. 1989. Churches and religious life. In Twentieth Century Lincolnshire, ed. D. Mills, 282–318. History of Lincolnshire Committee: Lincoln. News Review. 1947. Christians asleep. News Review, 6 November, pp. 21 & 24. Peach, C., and R. Gale. 2003. Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the new religious landscape of England. Geographical Review 93: 469–490. Pearson, D.G. 1978. Race, religiosity and political activism: Some observations on West Indian participation in Britain. The British Journal of Sociology 29: 340–357. Percy, M. 2013. Anglicanism: Confidence, Commitment and Communion. London: Routledge. Roberts, C. 2003. Is the rural church different? A comparison of historical membership statistics between an urban and a rural diocese in the Church of England. Rural Theology 1: 25–39. Rodger, R., and R. Madgin. 2016. Leicester: A Modern History. Carnegie: Lancaster.

198

D. BONNETTE

Rugg, J. 2000. Defining the place of burial: What makes a cemetery a cemetery? Mortality 5: 259–275. Rugg, J. 2013. Choice and constraint in the burial landscape: Re-evaluating twentieth-century commemoration in the English churchyard. Mortality 18: 215–234. Snell, K.D.M. 2009. Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700–1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Streb, C.K., T. Kolnberger, and S. Kmec. 2019. The material culture of burial and its microgeography: A Luxembourg cemetery as a methodological example of an object-centred approach to quantitative material culture studies. Journal of Material Culture 24: 334–359. Stringer, M.D. 2008. Contemporary Western Ethnography and the Definition of Religion. London: Bloomsbury. Tarlow, S. 2000. Landscapes of memory: The nineteenth-century garden cemetery. European Journal of Archaeology 3: 217–239. The Guardian. 1981. Idi Amin’s gift to Belgrave Road. The Guardian, 21 April. The Guardian. 1983. Sikhs may buy church. The Guardian, 25 February, p. 1. The Methodist Church. 1951. Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church, vol. 1. London: Methodist Publishing House. The Times. 1973. Redundant churches. The Times, 6 March. The Times. 1976. Leicester campaign to fight National Front. The Times, 24 June. The Times. 1989. Public notices. The Times, 31 May. The Times. 2011. Obituary: Monsignor Richard Rutt. The Times, 4 August. Troyna, B., and R. Ward. 1981. Racial antipathy and local opinion leaders: A tale of two cities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 9: 454–466. Woodhead, L. 2016. Neither religious nor secular: The British situation and its implications for religion–state relations. In Contesting Secularism: Comparative Perspectives, ed. A. Berg-Sorensen, 137–161. Abingdon: Routledge. Woodhead, L., and R. Catto, eds. 2012. Religion and Change in Modern Britain. Abingdon: Routledge.

CHAPTER 6

Collaboration: Church of England Agencies and the Heritage Movement

Sir, — The Ancient Monuments Society and the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches oppose the Church Commissioners’ decision to demolish All Saints’ Church, Great Steeping, because, to quote Miss Margot Eates, ‘the real interest in this church lies in the fact that it is Georgian on medieval foundations.’ No doubt, when there is a proposal to demolish another Georgian church, Miss Eates will declare that its real interest is that it is Georgian on Georgian foundations. Can it seriously be claimed that this adds up to an architectural and historic interest that ought to be preserved in the interests of the nation, and the Church of England? As is shown by your picture, the building is a very plain and uninteresting eighteenth-century church which completely lacks merit. When a church is handed over to the Redundant Churches Fund, money is diverted from the maintenance of the ministry to the maintenance of disused buildings…I would urge those who believe that only really outstanding churches should be preserved by the Redundant Churches Fund, and that the resources of the Church should be used for the living work of the Church, to write to the Commissioners immediately and urge them to demolish Great Steeping (Church Times 1976a). Sir, — For many people All Saints’ will be regarded as part of the cultural heritage of Europe — and many more of us will feel that, because it has been used for prayer and worship over a long period, its (sanctified) fabric © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_6

199

200

D. BONNETTE

should be maintained for future use. I would gladly subscribe my last new penny for such a good cause; and, please God, there will be others who would agree. (Church Times 1976b)

Historically, there has been an uneasy alliance between heritage organisations and agencies of the Church of England as they have struggled to collaborate in the church redundancy process. Studying redundant churches and heritage in the second half of the twentieth century uncovers themes of conflict, passion, power, politics and internal struggle (Tuan 1977, p. 197).1 Most people view church redundancy as a worrying but straightforward process to solve the problem of unwanted church buildings. However, the previous chapters have illustrated that this was very much not the case for some redundant Anglican buildings. Letters in the Church Times reveal complex motivations and competing interests, often characterised by bitter debate. What was meant to be a Church-led, bureaucratic process to solve the effects of rapid social and cultural change was, in reality, a creation of layers of differing interested parties, who wielded power over decision-making but often had no responsibility for the workings of policy or its consequences in the localities. In Lincolnshire, the Church Commissioners did not win the argument over the ‘plain and uninteresting’ Georgian church, surrounded by a medieval field system (Church Times 1976a). Despite having closed for worship in 1963 and being in a poor state of repair, the church was taken over by the Redundant Churches Fund (RCF). Meanwhile, parishioners continue to worship at the local Victorian church in the village (Figs. 6.1 and 6.2). Previous chapters have explored the development of a drive to protect buildings deemed to be at risk, and the resulting desire for legislation to ensure that church buildings were equally protected. This chapter examines the early stages of the collaboration to rescue churches no longer needed for worship, and the tensions and competing interests involved. The Church Commissioners were concerned with effective pastoral reorganisation and disposal of unwanted buildings, because they were focused on the mission for the ‘cure of souls’—on the living not the dead. Bishops had an overview of their dioceses and saw the effect of struggling to keep churches open when attendance declined and then dealing with unwanted buildings. Parishioners were concerned with more local matters of identity and belonging, planning issues and churchyard change. Heritage bodies held various conservationist perspectives, and valued historic and

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

201

Fig. 6.1 Great steeping church exterior, c. 1975 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

architectural aspects of churches, believing that the Church relished the opportunity to demolish redundant churches, regardless of their worth. Layered within this were the personal perspectives of the individuals involved, for it could not be assumed that all bishops disregarded heritage and no heritage experts valued churches as places of worship. Whichever standpoint was taken, the future of a church building generated an intense and passionate response, but with considerable lack of appreciation of other points of view. The longstanding lack of trust between the Church and heritage bodies led to a focused campaign for the high-level involvement of many different heritage specialists in creating the church redundancy process. The subsequent PM1968 legislation established a powerful, top down, expert-driven process that caused significant difficulties for Church authorities trying to steer a straight course while maintaining their mission. Kenneth Riches, bishop of Lincoln, exemplified the Church’s perspective in the early 1960s: ‘The Church is for people, it is not a society for the preservation of ancient monuments … when words like “heritage”

202

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 6.2 Great steeping church, c. 1975, illustrating the condition of the interior (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

and “shrine” are freely bandiedabout’ (Lincoln Diocese 1968, p. 33). He argued strongly that successive generations had altered or demolished churches at will, and set an unequivocal tone for the future in his diocese, observing that: Many of our buildings, far from being a treasure, are an embarrassment and a hindrance to the work of the Church. The problem of redundancy is, therefore, one which must be faced squarely. (Lincoln Diocese 1968, p. 34)

Different mindsets amongst the overlapping agencies involved proved very difficult for the Church of England to accommodate. There is little extant literature on the context of heritage in the PM1968, and how the top-down, often London-centric approach to church redundancy affected specific churches in a locality and the localities themselves (see Larkham and Nasr 2012, relating to the context of early twentieth-century protection of war-damaged churches in London). Few understand how the Church of England handled the passionate interactions, which had important and sometimes unintended negative

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

203

consequences for redundant buildings awaiting decisions on their future. The language associated with heritage and church redundancy has not been examined in detail. Thus, this chapter traces how heritage bodies became entwined in the redundancy process, and precisely how this involvement created tension and dilemmas, not just for the Church of England, but also for a range of other actors. It examines the accusation that those in positions of power and influence did not take corresponding responsibility for their recommendations, nor understand the feelings of the congregations or the effect of their involvement on church buildings. The extent to which expert opinion and architectural bias influenced the process, and the subsequent future of individual church buildings is considered. The ramifications are highlighted for buildings caught up in the maelstrom of sustained disagreement. The next section begins by focusing on the call for an expert-led policy.

Call for Expert-Led Policy After World War II, money was short, and little had been spent on church buildings for a long period. Many were in a poor state, with examples of bodged restoration and repair by local workmen rather than specialists, for example using concrete rather than lime to repair stonework, inevitably leading to greater repairs later. In Lincolnshire, Miningsby had been derelict for some years prior to redundancy, and Kingerby was unused and had fallen into disrepair. The last wedding at Caenby had taken place in 1934, and it had been derelict for many years ‘but no-one has ever bothered to close it’ (Sleaford Standard 1974). Thus, when Lord Bridges was asked by the archbishops to chair a commission to prepare proposals for a process to deal with redundant churches, heritage organisations and individuals distrustful of the Church readied themselves to become substantially involved. However, these organisations were not necessarily working with the same philosophies or beliefs, nor pursuing the same aims. The most significant in the national heritage world at that time were the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB, established 1877), the Ancient Monuments Society (AMS, 1924), the Georgian Group (GG, 1937), the Historic Churches Preservation Trust (HCPT, 1953), the Victorian Society (VC, 1957) and the Friends of Friendless Churches (FFC, 1957). SAVE Britain’s Heritage (1976) and the Twentieth Century Society (1992, founded as the Thirties Society

204

D. BONNETTE

in 1979) came later.2 These organisations put forward intellectual arguments for conservation and emphasised what they valued. They proposed that the best buildings should be protected, although there should not be wholesale preservation as, in their opinion, some buildings were less worth preserving than others. The Bridges Commission was guided by an underlying belief that historic buildings represent Britain’s national heritage. That it took eight years for its recommendations to be enacted in the PM1968 is indicative of the complexity of the issue.3 During the consultation process, expert witnesses ‘urged that there was a need for a new body to deal with the claims to preservation of redundant churches’ (Archbishop’s Commission 1960, p. 33). The experts wanted an authoritative body independent of the day-to-day workings of ‘the ecclesiastical machine’, and they most favoured an advisory body. It was felt that decisions about the future of redundant churches should not be taken ‘without the fullest consultation with representatives of those organisations in our national life which have a special concern with and possess expert knowledge of our architectural treasures and traditions’ (Archbishop’s Commission 1960, p. 38). The Society of Antiquaries wanted stronger protections and suggested an independent tribunal whose decisions should be final. This proposal would have ensured that any new review body would have complete authority. The commission was convinced by the heritage bodies’ appeals but was also under pressure from the Church Commissioners to retain some control over redundancy of their own churches. It concluded that final decisions about the future of redundant churches would rest with the Church Commissioners, but the new advisory board would be ‘so strongly composed as to give compelling weight’ (Archbishop’s Commission 1960, p. 43). The commission recommended the creation of two bodies, the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC) and the Redundant Churches Fund (RCF). The advisory board would give information and advice to the Church Commissioners concerning the historic and architectural qualities of any church, whether it ought to be declared redundant and its possible future use (PM1968 S.42(3)).4 The RCF would finance and maintain churches identified for preservation, led by a chair appointed by the state (PM1968 S.45(4)).5 Thus the heritage sector, genuinely believing that its experience and views should take precedence, had achieved the first priority of challenging the Church Commissioners’ absolute authority to decide on the future of its redundant churches. This effectively set the tone for future debate

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

205

between bodies adopting strikingly different perspectives. The ABRC viewed specific redundant church buildings as outstandingly beautiful, the RCF proposed that all should be saved, and the Church Commissioners and dioceses did not wish to be lumbered with historic millstones. Once the creation of the ABRC had been recommended, it was regarded as imperative that key positions be filled by the most influential people who could give proper weight to the heritage perspective. Sir Colin Anderson, chair of the Royal Fine Arts Commission and a significant figure in post-war art, met with John Hewitt, the prime minister’s appointment secretary, and Robert Beloe, lay chief of staff to the archbishop of Canterbury.6 Anderson, a shipping magnate and fine art collector, was very concerned that the Church’s interests in rationalisation might conflict with a preservationist agenda: It was clearly of the first importance that the Royal Fine Arts Commission should have an opportunity to advise or comment at some stage in the procedure. Even though there was a possible risk of confrontation with the Archbishops on this subject.7

Anderson suggested that the best way to maintain an appropriate link would be to appoint one or two members of his own Commission to the ABRC board, as well as an expert on church architecture, such as Reverend Basil. L. Clarke.8 Amongst other names discussed were John Piper and John Betjeman, who was already a leading member of at least five heritage bodies. This strategy was successful, and approved heritage experts achieved good representation on the board, with most key roles being filled by Oxford and Cambridge University alumni (Betjeman, key leaders of the Georgian Society and Ivor Bulmer-Thomas had been at Oxford, and most leaders of SAVE and many chairmen of the Council for the Care of Churches were Cambridge men). The chair of the ABRC was Lord Fletcher, an ecclesiologist and specialist in Anglo-Saxon architecture. Board members were mainly architectural historians, and membership included Nikolaus Pevsner from the Historic Buildings Council. Despite a balance of expert experience, most members’ passions were rooted in pre-Victorian architecture. Bulmer-Thomas was appointed to chair the RCF, and its members had a fine arts or antiquarian background: three were from the HCPT and one from the AMS (see Appendix 8 for other members). Bulmer-Thomas’s appointment was a risky move owing to his forthright views and often public and aggressive approach, particularly

206

D. BONNETTE

towards the Church of England hierarchy. His disagreements with the Church were widely reported in national newspapers of the time, and he wrote some scathing public letters. Politicians regarded him as ‘better in the camp than out’ because he had ‘stray views’ and was ‘a force to be reckoned with’.9 The Ministry of Housing and Local Government agreed to the appointment, but the archbishop of York was ‘not quite so sure’.10 Soon, all interested parties were embroiled in discussing possible futures for redundant churches.

Tense Beginnings Under PM1968, the ABRC was required to make recommendations to the Church Commissioners on the future of potential redundant buildings. Churches could be vested in the RCF for preservation in the interests of the nation and the Church of England if they were of outstanding architectural or historic value, although funding was limited (PM1968 S.45(4)). Under this arrangement, the property was legally transferred to the fund, and the church was pastorally redundant but could be used occasionally. Church buildings were expected to remain with the fund forever, but it was possible for them to be taken back into use through a process of de-vesting, although this did not occur until 1987, and infrequently thereafter. If a building was worth keeping but did not meet the criteria for vesting in the RCF, the diocese was given the unenviable task of finding an alternative use through a local redundant church uses committee (PM1968 S.47). The Commissioners had to be satisfied that a suitable use could be found, and the diocesan redundant churches uses committee was given a statutory duty to make every endeavour to find one (a task that the Bridges’ Commission had wanted to confer on the Church Commissioners). If a building was of ‘such small historic or architectural interest’, then demolition ‘would not, in the opinion of the ABRC, be objectionable’ (PM1968 S.49(i)). An alternative future, favoured by those who did not wish a building to have a secular alternative use, was to leave it to rot and become a ruin as a whimsical reminder of a romanticised past. Ruins inspired many poets and artists like John Piper, who painted many ruined churches. The vicar of Haceby wrote wistfully about ruins in The Observer in 1973, commenting that ‘I would prefer to see the church decay than be used for a secular purpose … ruined churches have a great sense of peace and majesty about them’

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

207

(The Observer 1973). However, leaving church a building to become a ruin was not included in the legislation. The Church Commissioners established a Redundant Churches Committee, which met for the first time in early 1969 to discuss the ABRC’s recommendations. By this time, the ABRC and the RCF were already treading on each other’s toes, which was not surprising considering their specialist backgrounds. Disagreements became more intense over time, particularly when Bulmer-Thomas was involved. Not wanting any churches to be lost, he consistently disagreed about the number of churches the fund could support and was continually frustrated by the ABRC’s decisions. In a memorandum to the Georgian Society in December 1971, he commented that the pastoral measure ‘needs a radical revision which would establish a single Disused Churches Board in place of the present Advisory Board for Redundant Churches and the Redundant Churches Fund’(Hansard 1972b).11 The archbishop of Canterbury tried to draw boundaries between the Church Commissioners and the RCF, but in a private letter, Bulmer-Thomas wrote to him: ‘if the Commissioners wish to claim a right to demolish churches of architectural or historic interest, let them say so publicly’.12 He compared the RCF with the National Trust, in that it preserved churches for the benefit of the nation, and suggested that it would be ‘difficult to prove that demolishing is in the interests of the nation’.13 The focus of criticism widened, and the RCF’s third Annual Report in 1972 made negative comments about the Church Commissioners, which did not improve already strained relationships. Bulmer-Thomas was also chair of the FFC, which in November 1972 expressed lack of confidence in the ABRC. Over three years after the introduction of PM1968, the FFC was ‘grievously disappointed’, giving the example of Old Woodhall St Margaret where the ABRC had not provided a safeguard (Figs. 6.3 and 6.4). It cited the ARBC’s ‘disturbing readiness’ to suggest that there would be no objection to demolition because the church in question had such little historic or architectural interest, thereby bypassing the one-year waiting period and ‘sentencing’ the church to immediate closure. The tiny church at Old Woodhall, Lincolnshire, described by the ABRC as a ‘wholly undistinguished nineteenth century reconstruction’, and by the RCF as having a ‘fine fourteenth-century west facade’, stood alone beside a larger farmhouse in a small hamlet near Horncastle.14 By 1962, the church had been empty for many years, and parishioners

208

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 6.3 Old Woodhall church exterior, c. 1970 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

worshipped at the larger church in Woodhall Spa. In 1966, BulmerThomas, on behalf of the FFC, had asked for any decision about its future to be shelved until PM1968 came into effect. In 1967, a local newspaper reported that the derelict church was to be demolished by the diocese ‘once funds were available’ because, as the vicar emphasised, ‘it is an embarrassment’ and ‘a perfect disgrace’ (The Standard 1967). The Lincoln Diocese believed that better examples than the neglected St Margaret might be saved with its slim resources, and that finding an alternative use would be impossible because of its geographical position and would be a scandalous waste of money (Church Times 1972a). Although the ABRC had not recommended it, the FFC offered to take over the church and the RCF said that it might be able to fund its preservation. However, the bishop was determined that the church should be demolished and was angered by the Church Commissioners’ attitude. Wary of the heritage bodies, the Commissioners had suggested to the bishop that ‘in view of the preservation interests involved it seems unwise to take

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

209

Fig. 6.4 Old Woodhall church interior, c. 1970 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

action which could be interpreted as deliberately flouting their views’.15 The ensuing bitter and public row exposed the contrasting perspectives. The diocese was criticised for imposing its own opinion on expert heritage bodies, even though no-one had visited to examine the church’s condition and location. Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust believed the church would be preserved only ‘for the future delectation of a few cognoscenti’ in London, and a letter writer charged the Lincoln Diocese with being ‘guilty of arrogance and vicious spite’ for wanting to demolish the church (Church Times 1972b). The AMS was shocked because, as the church was on the special architectural and historical interest list, demolition would be ‘a provocative action which opens the possibility of conflict between Church and State’.16 Ironically, it was discovered that the FFC did not have the funds to take over the unused and derelict church, and the ABRC was forced to return to the original decision to demolish it. Apparently unembarrassed by the FFC’s role in Old Woodhall, BulmerThomas considered the Church Commissioners to have too much control

210

D. BONNETTE

over the choice of buildings to vest in the RCF. He worked to change the FFC’s constitution so that it would take ownership of specific listed buildings, and thereby save them. Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust also disagreed with aspects of PM1968. Formed in 1952 by the provincial elite as the first county trust and an offshoot of the HCPT, its policy diverged from that of the ABRC. The legislation made clear that if a church was not vested in the RCF, an alternative use must be found, otherwise it must be demolished. Because of local interest, the Trust was unwilling to abandon redundant churches, although its own grant funding was only available for churches over 100 years old. It innovatively sought to establish a leasing agreement for a redundant church, which might be considered as an alternative use, and continued to fight for churches caught up in the PM1968 policy framework. Criticism of PM1968 arose even from within the ranks of the ABRC. In a letter to Lambeth Palace in 1972, John Brandon-Jones, a chartered architect on the board, expressed grave doubts about the adequacy of the measure. Churches, he said, were becoming ‘soul-less and desolate museums’ because they had to be declared redundant before being placed in the care of the RCF, but were no longer in use.17 He believed that the ABRC should consider and list all churches of importance, regardless of redundancy, and undertake their maintenance.18 He recommended that the ABRC should lease buildings back to the congregation, who should be responsible for ordinary costs, which would instil a sense of pride. His suggestions might have kept some churches open for longer but were not accepted at the time. Thus, while the Church of England was attempting to streamline its administrative structure, the accumulated processes it was still trying to manage created ongoing conflicts and tensions between interested parties. Meanwhile, enactment of the new PM1968 legislation had taken so long that there was a backlog of potentially redundant churches. By the early 1970s, around 100 churches were being closed each year, 21% of which were ultimately demolished (Archbishops’ Council 2004, p. 138), making the pace of redundancy seem faster than it was. This created a public-relations problem, and in 1973, prompted the General Synod to set up the Campbell-Basingstoke Working Party. Chaired by Wilson W. Campbell, it carried out an early review of the measure’s operation, looking particularly at the respective functions of the ABRC and the RCF. The working party’s 1975 report expressed contradictory views on the complicated procedures and the adequacy of safeguards, but concluded that overall, PM1968 was serving the Church well. However, a process

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

211

for seeking leave to appeal to a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was introduced, which would radically reduce the number of appeals against redundancy (Archbishops’ Council 2004). In response to criticisms of its work, the ABRC cautioned the Church Commissioners on their approach to pastoral reorganisation and the damage inflicted by re-ordering schemes: We believe that there is sometimes a regrettable tendency to make a hasty application for redundancy without sufficient regard to the pastoral situation in a wider area, or to the relative architectural and historic merits of the churches within that area. (The Times 1976)

Thus, within a short space of time, the two bodies set up to systemise the redundancy procedure had become involved in internal wrangling, and the ABRC was attempting to set itself apart from the Church Commissioners. Heritage groups were critical of the workings of PM1968, and individuals publicly expressed a lack of confidence in the process. The heritage groups had manoeuvred themselves into positions to influence the establishment of structures for PM1968 but did not have sufficient authority for involvement in decision-making. Although they did not appear to be united in their evaluations of the quality of individual church buildings, the one aspect that did bond them was their opposition to the view of the Church hierarchy. While many churches were made redundant and vested or sold with little consternation, the heritage bodies sometimes felt compelled to intervene, particularly if there was an external threat to a perceived national treasure.

Intervention Lowenthal (1998, p. x) talks of showing signs of possessive behaviour, viewing heritage ‘as our own; we strive to keep it out of the clutches of others we suspect, often with good reason, of aiming to steal it or to spoil it’. This behaviour is clearly evidenced in objections to the fate of Covenham St Bartholomew, Lincolnshire. St Bartholomew, a Grade II listed church mainly in the Decorated style, was made redundant in 1980. Described by Pevsner as ‘a stray East Anglian piece’, it was only quarter of a mile from Covenham St Mary and was not needed by the parishioners. Given the high cost of repairs, the RCF felt that the building was too great a burden to take into the fund, and no-one else wanted it. Discussions

212

D. BONNETTE

were leading to a decision that the building would be demolished, but in 1985 an offer was made by Reverend Samuel Scheibler of St Matthews by the Sea in Corona Del Mar to buy the church and rebuild it in America.19 This quickly became public knowledge, and appalled heritage groups began a pressured campaign to stop the sale. The language used in the objection letters is indicative of the passionate response aroused, demonstrating how the church buildings moved people (Whyte 2017). The AMS wrote: ‘I am afraid we also felt that St Bartholomew’s was bound to look like an exotic alien in its new setting’ (author’s italics).20 SAVE objected to the move because ‘our committee was horrified by the proposal, which it thought both bizarre and offensive’.21 The SPAB was ‘astounded and appalled’ to hear of the possible scheme to demolish and rebuild as the church will be ‘sterilised of its historical authenticity’.22 The parishioners did not agree, and wrote to ‘applaud the action if it means that the building will once again return to the service for which it was intended’.23 The Church itself was unhappy about the type of Christian organisation the Reverend Scheibler led in America. In correspondence from the Episcopal Church in Los Angeles, Robert Runcie was urged ‘to protect the integrity of that little church by seeing that it remains in England’.24 The controversial purchase was refused, and the church was eventually conveyed to the Covenham St Bartholomew Heritage Trust in 1989, 12 years after the last service had been conducted there. For the Church of England, its redundancy provoked a series of unanticipated dilemmas connected with British identity and fitting future use, provoking much unwanted public and media interest. The Church Commissioners were very concerned about bad publicity concerning the future of redundant churches and appeared nervous of the influence of the heritage bodies, to the extent that in specific cases, they would shift their stance. For example, the future of Salmonby church in Lincolnshire provoked significant interest (Figs. 6.5 and 6.6). Salmonby was a Grade B listed church in the Lincolnshire Wolds, sited at the top of nearly 30 steep steps. Its congregation numbered just seven in 1965, and Salmonby and Tetford parishes united in 1966. However, few members of Salmonby attended the nearby Tetford church. Salmonby’s closure was requested because of its poor state of repair and lack of use, although Salmonby members were allegedly heavily outnumbered by those from Tetford on the merged PCC when the matter was decided.25 The church was eventually declared redundant in 1973, and the incumbent and the diocese were clear that they wanted the church

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

213

Fig. 6.5 Salmonby church exterior, c. 1973, prior to demolition (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

to be demolished. However, the ABRC described the church as having ‘some’ architectural and historic interest and recommended that an alternative use be found. A full waiting period was recommended, even though the diocese had made clear that it would be unlikely to find an alternative use. One possible buyer withdrew because local people were unhappy for the building to become a residential studio if the graveyard was to continue for burials. The church was not maintained by the parish or the diocese, and in 1974 its condition was described as a scandal. By 1976, at

214

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 6.6 Salmonby church interior, c. 1973 (Source Kind permission of the Church Commissioners)

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

215

the end of the waiting period, demolition appeared to be the only course of action. However, the proposed demolition suddenly aroused local feeling and trustees of Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust used their personal social networks to try to rescue the church. SAVE became involved, wanting the church to slip into gentle ruination and a friends group was formed (SAVE 1976). These interventions were successful, and the ‘preservationists’ were given time to come up with an alternative proposal. The vicar of Salmonby was outraged and refused to stop distributing the contents of the church, while threatening to demolish it himself. He referred to nastiness and wounds and was particularly concerned that, if sold, the church could be a focus for an opposing ministry. In a letter to the diocese, the Church Commissioners admitted that it was ‘strictly correct’ to refuse any interest after the statutory period had expired. However, ‘consequent repercussions in the national and local press would have been harmful to the Church’ and ‘any lack of sympathy shown to the preservationists at this time would not help the prospects of getting State Aid for churches in use in the foreseeable future’.26 The bishop was asked to determine which was the lesser of two evils: upsetting influential people in the area or upsetting the incumbent. The reply was not conciliatory. Bishop Simon Phipps reminded the Commissioners that there had been no representations against the initial scheme for demolition, and that a change would go completely against pastoral reorganisation and planned group organisation.27 A petition of 159 signatures was sent to the Church Commissioners concerning the church’s abandonment.28 The petitioners believed that the village church belonged to the village’s people, not to its succession of incumbents, and felt that ‘if the final act of desecration is allowed and the church demolished before our eyes, our wounds will be so deep that they will not be healed within the life of this generation or the next’.29 This was a very emotive statement, especially given that the church had allegedly become dangerous owing to lack of care and maintenance. Patrick Cormack and the Friends of Salmonby offered £1,000 to buy the church, and John Piper sent a personal plea on a postcard to the bishop, but to no avail. Salmonby was demolished, and all that remains is an overgrown graveyard. There were differing and contesting motivations surrounding the future of Salmonby church. Local people had ample opportunity to look after the unused church and object to its closure but failed to do so until spurred on by the local trust. The bishop preferred demolition

216

D. BONNETTE

and was firmly against a local heritage group taking over the church building because of its effect on his pastoral organisation, a factor that heritage bodies could not comprehend. Retaining the decrepit church would set a precedent for the many other potentially redundant buildings in Lincolnshire. The Church Commissioners were prepared to bend the rules to prevent adverse publicity and to achieve their wider financial and political strategy. Influential local people could not understand why the church had to be demolished and were unafraid to use their social networks to gather support. National preservationists fought for an apparently unimportant and unvisited little church, to which Pevsner had devoted only a few sentences in his book on Lincolnshire, and which the ABRC considered to have little architectural value.

Architectural Value A church’s architectural value was a very controversial issue in the redundancy process. The ABRC determined whether the church was sufficiently outstanding to be vested in the RCF. If not, it could be found an alternative use or be demolished. The academic backgrounds and social networks of members of the ABRC influenced their approaches to architectural conservation and preservation. William Morris’s (1877) definition of value guided much of their thinking and emphasised the members’ authority: If, for the rest, it be asked of us to specify what kind of amount of art, style, or other interest in a building, makes it worth protecting, we answer, anything which can be looked on as artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial: any work, in short, over which educated, artistic people would think it worthwhile to argue at all.

This was a particularly troublesome element throughout the discourse, as agreement on and transparent criteria for what was determined ‘outstanding’, were lacking, leading to conflict over specific churches. Even by 1990, it was thought by the archbishop of Canterbury to be a highly subjective aesthetic judgement, reliant on the competency of those who inspected the churches (Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas 1990). Bulmer-Thomas, whose criticism of the ARBC was no secret and whose personal dislike of Pevsner was well-known, used the vesting of Cold

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

217

Hanworth, Lincolnshire (Grade II) to exemplify his perception of the subjective nature of decisions. He complained that: Equally incredible is the fact ... that they wish us to preserve Cold Hanworth, although one of their own number, Nikolaus Pevsner has condemned it in terms as severe as any man could use. It is a real ‘Victorian Horror’. The capriciousness of the Advisory Board’s judgement in what they like and dislike. They have money—shrug shoulders and do it.30

In its defence, the ABRC reasoned that it had to be selective in order to maintain credibility, as it would be impossible to save every threatened building. Fewer older buildings had survived than nineteenth-century examples, so energy was devoted mainly to saving medieval churches. The statistics show that churches from other periods were not often considered for vesting in the RCF, revealing an architectural bias in decision-making early in the redundancy process. An essential element of the process was the initial report collated by the Council for the Care of Churches (CCC) when a church was identified for potential redundancy. The report was sent to the ABRC for discussion, and crucially the latter judged whether the church was of an appropriate standard to be vested in the RCF or if an alternative use should be sought. By the end of 1996, 1,800 reports on proposed redundant churches had been provided, 1,500 of which had been written by Donald Findlay, the CCC’s Pastoral Measure Officer, with support from Peter Burman, director of York University’s Centre for Conservation Studies, chairman of the fabric committee of St Paul’s Cathedral and a member of the SPAB (Burnham 1995; Friends of Christ Church Spitalfields 1998). Donald Findlay, later deputy secretary of the CCC, was a perfectionist who allegedly ‘never gave an opinion or wrote a report without backing of fact and balanced judgement’. Inspired by Basil Clarke, who disliked Victorian buildings, Findlay became a ‘one man royal commission on parish churches’, and his reports were pivotal in determining the future of church buildings (The Times 1998; The Independent 1998). He was said to be appalled by the philistinism of many in the Church and believed that historic buildings should be protected and retained in active use. He often used board member, Nikolaus Pevsner’s county guides and local gazetteers to support his evaluations, although he also visited many churches himself to gain a personal view. However, lack of specific criteria

218

D. BONNETTE

and reliance on personal judgement led to argument and bitter debate and shaped the RCF’s architectural legacy. Figure 6.7 shows the distribution of vestings in the RCF across the dioceses (Church of England 2007). A further four churches preserved by the Secretary of State and eight by diocesan boards of finance are not included in this analysis. Salisbury had most churches vested in the RCF (24), and Lincoln was in second place, with 22 of its redundant churches preserved. Other dioceses with high numbers of vestings generally had large rural areas, such as Ely and Norwich, whereas Birmingham and Southwark had no churches vested in the RCF over the same period. Importantly, around 83 per cent of all churches vested in the RCF were situated in rural areas, with eight per cent in suburbs and only six per cent in cities. In terms of age, it is important to bear in mind that churches, rejected as heavy-handed nineteenth-century restorations, such as Little Carlton, Lincolnshire, were sometimes later found to have been rebuilt using the original materials, or to retain special features of much older churches, so they were not entirely Victorian. However, there was evidently partiality towards vesting older buildings, since over 77% of all churches vested in the RCF were pre-fifteenth- or fifteenth-century buildings. Only 10% had been built in the nineteenth century and none in the twentieth century (Fig. 6.8). In the Leicester Diocese, four rural churches (Beeby, Stapleford, Stretton-en-le-Field and Withcote Chapel) and one urban church (Leicester All Saints) were vested in the RCF, as well as the tower of Brentingby church. The rest of Brentingby church became a residence. In the Lincoln Diocese in the 1970s, Barton on Humber (pre-fifteenthcentury) was taken over by the Ministry of Works in order to investigate its Saxon foundations.31 More locally, the Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust protected sixteenth-century Brauncewell through a leasing agreement, and other heritage trusts took over nineteenth-century Horncastle Holy Trinity and pre-fifteenth-century Covenham St Bartholomew. The vesting process could allegedly be used to the dioceses’ advantage, in the knowledge that superior buildings were more likely to be taken on by the RCF. Normanby church in Lincolnshire was purportedly closed, rather than Owmby church a short distance away, because it would better fulfil the criteria for vesting in the RCF and ‘would be less of a problem’.32 The raw data must therefore be carefully considered in their local political context. The focus on architectural superiority

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

219

Diocese

RCF vestings Bath & Wells Birmingham Blackburn Bradford Bristol Canterbury Carlisle Chelmsford Chester Chichester Coventry Derby Durham Ely Exeter Gloucester Guildford Hereford Leicester Lichfield Lincoln Liverpool London Manchester Newcastle Norwich Oxford Pererborough Portsmouth Ripon & Leeds Rochester Salisbury Sheffield Southwark Southwell & Notts St Albans St Edmundsbury & Ipswich Truro Wakefield Winchester Worcester York 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number

Fig. 6.7 Number of vestings in the RCF across the dioceses, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division database, 2007)

220

D. BONNETTE

Vesting in RCF by century built 19th 10%

20th 0%

18th 8% 17th 2% 16th 2%

Medieval 78%

Fig. 6.8 Vestings in the RCF by century built, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division database, 2007)

contrasted sharply with the view of Kenneth Riches, bishop of Lincoln who strongly objected to regarding church buildings purely aesthetically, as expressed in his address at the laying of Lincoln St John’s foundation stone: A church was not a thing which should evoke exclamations like ‘Isn’t it nice!’ said the Bishop …, although he hoped people would come to the new church on Ermine-estate, Lincoln, and say: ‘My God!’. (The Lincolnshire Echo 1962)

For Riches, the Church of England was a living entity of worshippers, not a building fixed in stone. In view of his problems with diocesan clergy and finances, Riches reflected on the repercussions of PM1968

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

221

for the Lincoln Diocese and prepared a guide for its future reorganisation (Lincoln Diocese 1968). As highlighted in previous chapters, at that time, congregations in many rural Lincolnshire churches were very small, clergy numbers were declining, and parishioners were struggling to maintain old buildings requiring repair. Riches was frustrated that the new boards, the ABRC and the RCF, would curtail his freedom to make decisions about church buildings in his diocese. He was a pragmatist, unsentimental about the past and focused on the financial viability of the present. His list of 164 potential and already redundant churches across the diocese submitted by local clergy included fewer nineteenth-century buildings than those from earlier periods.33 Reflecting changing contexts, by 2000, only 56 of the churches on the original list were made redundant, 21% nineteenth century and 12 per cent from earlier periods. A further 15 nineteenth-century buildings and 9 from earlier periods were added over time. As shown in Table 6.1, under half of the original list was eventually made redundant. Of those, 63% of the buildings eventually made redundant were nineteenth-century churches (and one twentieth century). Of the 50 nineteenth-century churches made redundant, only two were vested in the RCF, while 21 of the 30 churches built in other periods were vested. Contrary to Bishop Riches’ wishes, perceived heritage value took precedence over living worship and practical decision-making, although the churches’ condition and geographical position may also Table 6.1 Data from the list of possible redundant churches for the Lincoln Diocese, 1968

19th/ 20th century Recommended for redundancy Made redundant—on bishop’s list Made redundant—not on bishop’s list Total made redundant by 2000 Vested in RCF

Earlier periods

76

88

35

21

15

9

50 (63%)

30 (37%)

2 (4%)

21 (70%)

Source Extracted from: Lincoln Diocese, Into Tomorrow, A Report on the Pastoral Re-Organisation (Lincoln, 1968)

222

D. BONNETTE

have contributed to the final figure. Was the reaction in nearby Leicester Diocese comparable? The Leicester Diocese had more declining urban communities than Lincoln, largely because of city planning, with wide-scale demolitions of poor-quality housing and modern roads taking shape. In many areas, few people were left to attend the churches, or changing faith backgrounds meant that the buildings were no longer required. In the 1970s, Bishop Ronald Williams, tasked with dealing with this problem, did so differently from Riches in the Lincoln Diocese (The Times 1979).34 Williams established a commission that published recommendations on the future of city churches (Bishop’s Commission 1970). Four of the five people on the commission agreed on priorities for keeping certain church buildings open, but one member wanted the priority to be historical importance (Bishop’s Commission 1970, p. 2). In the commission’s view, churches of ‘less architectural interest and of nineteenth-century origin’ might still retain some of the old congregation and their children, future generations might re-populate areas, and some churches could be retained for diocesan purposes. However, its conclusion was that ‘on balance this amply justified … the physical preservation of all the pre-Reformation church buildings in the inner city, all of which were beautiful’, as well as St George (1827) and All Souls (1907) which were designated ‘of notable beauty’. All Souls had also received favourable comments from John Betjeman in 1954: ‘Of all Leicester churches this is the best … it is a lovely church, in another world from others’ (Leicester Evening Mail 1954). The churches identified for demolition were the less attractive nineteenth-century churches of St John (1854), St Andrew (1862), St Matthew (1867) and St Leonard (1877), which were in areas of population decline, and which the commission thought would not be missed. However, these were not demolished during Williams’s tenure. Williams’s membership of the HCPT may have contributed to the protracted decision-making process during the commission’s consultations. His successor, Richard Rutt, who successfully resurrected Leicestershire Historic Churches Preservation Trust, later fulfilled the rationalisation task. St John was eventually sold, St Andrew was reprieved, and the other two churches were demolished: St Leonard in 1983 and St Matthew in 1986. Aylestone Park St James (1891) was added to the list and was subsequently demolished in 1989. In this respect, therefore, Rutt’s attitude was similar to that of his counterpart at the Lincoln Diocese. The Church of England had to be

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

223

pragmatic, financially realistic and forward-looking, and not afraid of demolition. However, the finality of demolition and the difficulties of finding alternative use caused fractious arguments.

Alternative Use and Demolition The range of alternative uses has been explored in previous chapters and highlighted the differing opinions about the church buildings having a fitting secular use. However, few of those involved in the redundancy process considered the spiritual value of the church building, especially if it was vested in the RCF. The building was stripped of any religious symbols and vestments when it became a venue for tourists, which caused it to be ‘spiritually inert’ (Brotherton 2017). Essentially, for some it became a museum, not a place of worship and demolition was viewed as a better alternative. It could prevent unfitting secular use or the prospect of an empty building providing a symbol of Christian decline. National statistics show that, from the inception of PM1968 to 2000, demolition was the second most prevalent outcome for redundant churches, with almost 21% being demolished across all dioceses.35 The figures were very similar in the two case study regions: Leicester also demolished 21% and Lincoln 22%. Demolishing a redundant church building was often seen as the best option, to offer clarity and completeness for the congregation and remove a potential focus of discontent (Matarasso 1995, p. 34). However, before PM1968, there was already a perception that too many churches had been demolished in the Lincoln Diocese. Hence, Lincoln city’s planning officer wrote to the diocese: The present spate of church demolitions, particularly in a city like Lincoln is, I feel, regrettable and I am of the opinion that every effort should be made to find an alternative use for redundant churches and that demolition should only take place as a last resort.36

Even so, Riches’ successor, Bishop Simon Phipps presided over the demolition of at least 11 churches during his time in Lincoln (The Guardian 2001).37 A church’s geographical position was significant, since over 85% of all demolitions were of churches in urban areas: 29% in cities, 27% in city suburbs and 29% in towns. With regard to the age of churches chosen for demolition, nationally, 95% of all demolished churches had been built or

224

D. BONNETTE

heavily restored in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, whereas only 3% were medieval (Fig. 6.9). Most demolitions in the Lincoln Diocese (Fig. 6.10) and all in the Leicester Diocese were of nineteenth-century churches. Changing fashions therefore played a key role in the church redundancy process: Victorian churches, which had been cheaply and quickly built, and were cumbersome to repair and expensive to maintain, were generally targeted for demolition rather than vesting in the RCF, although the FFC did attempt to rescue more modern churches if they were listed. Both dioceses had to deal with a post-war backlog of repairs and maintenance, as well as rapidly changing national and local social contexts. They also had to find alternative uses for churches not vested or too good

National demolitions

Medieval 3%

20th 19%

18th 2%

19th 76%

Fig. 6.9 National statistics for demolition by build date of church, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division Statistical database, 2007)

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

225

to be demolished, which was particularly challenging in Lincolnshire. This created further dilemmas for the bishops, and debate about alternative use exacerbated tensions between the Church agencies, heritage organisations, congregations and local communities. The redundancy of Little Carlton St Edith brings many delaying factors to life and illustrates the dilemmas faced by the Lincoln Diocese when trying to agree an alternative use. In 1980, following the death of the vicar, the diocese proposed the union of Great Carlton and Little Carlton, making Little Carlton St Edith redundant. The churches were two miles apart, and St Edith, thought to have been largely rebuilt in 1837, was listed as Grade II after being made redundant. (Its dating was later

Lincoln Diocese demolitions Medieval 18%

20th 23%

18th 12%

19th 47%

Fig. 6.10 Lincoln Diocese—statistics for demolition by build date of church, 1968–2000 (Source Closed Churches Division Statistical database, 2007)

226

D. BONNETTE

disputed by David Stocker of English Heritage, who reported that this related to substantial repairs when the western third of the nave and the west tower and spire had been added to older fabric). Pevsner gives it a short entry, describing it as having ‘a nice chancel roof’, and photographs of the church show that apart from the tower, the building was plain (Pevsner and Harris 1964, p. 298). The parishioners had spent 20 years raising money for nearby Great Carlton’s fifteenth-century church tower, which was repaired at a cost of £12,000.38 The ABRC advocated that strenuous efforts should be made to find an alternative use. It would have accepted residential use, but in 1983 planning permission for a residence was refused by East Lindsey Council as undesirable, as it lacked suitable access. East Lindsey’s policy was usually to refuse conversions of redundant churches in rural areas, which impacted considerably on the number of demolitions in the diocese.39 An appeal to the Department of the Environment was also refused. The Lincoln diocesan redundant churches uses committee tried to save the church by enquiring whether Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust or the FFC would take it on, but both organisations declined. In the meantime, the local parish council made clear that it was opposed to retaining St Edith’s church for alternative use, as the parishioners actively supported Great Carlton church and had great concerns about ‘someone living in their churchyard’.40 They had heard rumours from parishioners living near other closed churches, and felt that ‘local people just don’t want someone living in their churchyard, particularly in view of the problems over access to graves that have arisen where churches have been converted elsewhere’(Louth Standard 1988). In 1984, Margot Eates, secretary of the ABRC, reiterated that the church was not good enough to vest in the RCF, but registered her ‘strongest disapproval of the failure of the local planning authority and the Department of the Environment to accord planning approval for a change of use’.41 Miss Eates had dealt with East Lindsey on previous occasions, and her frustrations were demonstrated in her final flourish: It will be an act of quite pointless vandalism to demolish the church and yet, since it cannot be considered sufficiently important for preservation by the RCF, there is now no alternative to that course.

The prospective demolition provoked disapproval from heritage bodies, as summarised by the Louth Standard (1988): ‘Villagers who want their church demolished rather than be turned into a house, face a clash with

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

227

top-level, building conservationists’. The Victorian Society wanted the church preserved, the Georgian Group and the AMS blamed the local authority and objected to demolition, and the church was also featured in Country Life. The Secretary of State for the Environment did not feel able to intervene. Meanwhile, local people were pressing for a decision, and in 1986 they wrote to the bishop offering to buy the church, take it down and create a restful green corner, especially as vandals and tramps were moving in.42 In October 1987, the Secretary of State for the Environment received advice that a non-statutory enquiry would be inappropriate, and the building’s demolition was scheduled. Early in 1988, a prospective buyer submitted plans to the ABRC, which had no objection in principle but was dissatisfied with the design, as it did not maintain the integrity of the church building.43 Local people continued to object, and in May 1988, without recourse to the parochial council, a delegation was sent by English Heritage to visit the church. This was led by the Duke of Gloucester (a trained architect), who expressed dismay that the church was due to be demolished. At this point the church was derelict and the churchyard overgrown (Figs. 6.11 and 6.12). Mr Doak, chairman of the Marsh Villages Society, subsequently put in an offer to buy the church, but local people objected again, and planning permission was once more refused. Local people were irritated that the sale proceeds would not benefit the two villages. The ABRC supported an appeal, but this was also dismissed. At a public meeting in July 1990, English Heritage indicated that it was not prepared to give any grant to prevent the church from declining further, despite its earlier public dismay. In August 1990, the diocese offered to gift the church to the village, along with responsibility for its demolition. The parish council baulked when faced with the various covenants that would come with the church if it were not demolished and agreed to support its demolition to seat height. In May 1993, 13 years after initial discussions about redundancy, the church was finally demolished. During this time, the church had deteriorated badly and had become increasing difficult to conserve. Overall, 15 slightly differing and competing perspectives were offered, but it was the diocese that had the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that action was taken. Records show that St Edith was discussed constantly by the diocesan redundant churches uses committee. The account illustrates the confusing landscape in which the redundant church scheme operated during a difficult phase in the Church of England’s long history

228

D. BONNETTE

Fig. 6.11 Little Carlton church exterior, 1991 (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology)

of building, refashioning and removing churches from its property portfolio. This was summed up in the Lincoln diocesan redundant churches uses committee’s report: Suffice it to report that, unless there was a clear need either for demolition or preservation, the search for alternative uses remains laborious, timeconsuming and generally abortive. This is not surprising when redundant churches in this diocese are mostly neglected, surrounded by burials, difficult of access, and buried deep in a largely uninhabited countryside where people generally do not seek to live or work. (Lincoln Diocese 1980)

Despite the diocesan redundant churches uses committee’s gloomy report, the Lincoln Diocese was reasonably successful in searching for alternative uses. Organisations such as the FFC attempted to save listed churches that were rejected by the ABRC, and friend’s groups were established. Approximately a dozen buildings in the Lincoln Diocese were converted. For example, Claxby became a taxidermist’s studio, while Wispington was used as the diocesan store for furniture from other

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

229

Fig. 6.12 Little Carlton church interior, 1991 (Source Kind permission of the Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology)

redundant churches. Panton had been described as a church ‘disused and disgracefully neglected at time of writing’, with a Georgian chancel restored in 1905 (Pevsner and Harris 1964, pp. 334–335). It was in such a poor state prior to conversion that it was thought ‘it could be knocked down by a tractor’, but it was successfully converted into a holiday home.44 Eight churches were sold into private hands and became monuments, seven of them medieval churches insufficiently outstanding to be vested in the RCF. Of these, Hawerby was left to rot for 30 years and was on the at-risk register but has recently been converted into a home; Oxcombe is looked after by the Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust; Saltfleetby tower and Sutterby are in the hands of the FFC; and Caenby is in private ownership.

Conclusion Many visitors admire the beautiful church buildings currently in the hands of the Churches Conservation Trust (formerly RCF) and other local

230

D. BONNETTE

trusts, but fail to appreciate the depth of feeling, conflict and passion that threatened to overwhelm the redundancy process over time. Despite extensive literature on definitions of heritage, architectural history and the significant achievements of various heritage bodies in post-war Britain, very little has been written about the local consequences of strategies and policies that attempted to protect redundant church buildings. The power politics at play, and the significant influence exerted on government and ecclesiastical policy between 1945 and 2000 are poorly understood. The internal struggles that characterised the processes are rarely highlighted, with little recognition that less fortunate church buildings faced an altogether different future. Some, lost forever from the landscape, from photographs and from archival records are but a distant memory. This chapter has traced the initial stirrings of heritage bodies’ policy and operations as they formed an uneasy alliance with Church of England agencies and stimulated thinking. Key personalities, their motivations, passion, influence and effects have featured in this chapter, since they created a legacy. Tensions between actors and their consequences have been explored through individual church examples, including differing perspectives on the value of heritage and the subsequent actions of the bishops of the two dioceses. Analysis of national and regional data has revealed the number and age of churches vested in the RCF. Those demolished have been compared in the two study dioceses. The protracted nature of searches for alternative uses and their consequences for some buildings has been highlighted. The individual churches in the case study dioceses offer a unique perspective on heritage debates and illustrate the different mindsets of those involved. The Church was focused on its mission, the ABRC on choosing the best churches to save, the RCF on attempting to preserve as many churches as possible and heritage bodies on preservation. The diocese was trying to balance competing perspectives of the various agencies, the sensitivities of the congregation and the varying parish viewpoints. An elite group strongly influenced how churches were dealt with in the redundancy process from the beginning of the creation of PM1968. However, the philosophies of members of this elite group often conflicted, with negative effects. One troublesome element throughout the discourse was the lack of agreement and transparent criteria on what constituted an outstanding church building worth saving. Conflict raged

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

231

around certain buildings, and decisions were made based on subjective responses and particular architectural tastes, which did not always take account of local importance. Pre-sixteenth-century church buildings were clearly viewed by most people, and especially by experts, as more important than more modern buildings. Many buildings passed through the redundancy processes without fuss, but some buildings gave rise to extreme and possessive emotions when they were threatened. There were many layers of potential tension and mistrust within the redundancy process, which parishioners found particularly hard to navigate. Within the Church Commissioners, the often tense relationship between the ABRC and RCF was well-known and boundaries were not clear. Their key principles were at odds, causing anxious debate. Each heritage body approached a redundancy with slightly different considerations, depending on the focus of their work. For some high profile churches, several of them intervened in diocesan processes, deploying very emotive language. The bishops held their own personal views about the importance of historic buildings and were often in open disagreement with the ABRC because of its lack of understanding about local matters in connection with alternative use. Bishops were irritated by the RCF because it attempted to vest what were seen as unworthy cases, although they would use the RCF to rid the diocese of expensive millstones. The heritage bodies were not impressed by the views of the Church Commissioners, the dioceses, incumbents or parishioners who did not want to keep their historic churches. New owners were confronted with innumerable covenants set by the ABRC to continue to protect churches’ historical integrity and, much to the exasperation of the ABRC, they were sometimes ignored. There was also a culture of accusation and blame about the state of each church, at the beginning of the redundancy process and during the waiting period. The ABRC blamed parishioners for lack of maintenance and care; Bulmer-Thomas accused churchwardens of lacking expert architectural knowledge; some thought that the RCF supported alternative uses to avoid costs; various funding bodies were accused of focusing too much on medieval churches; the Church authorities were accused of not wanting redundant buildings; and planning authorities were blamed for failing to support alternative use schemes. A further layer of conflict was created by the disagreements about alternative use. It is unsurprising that some redundancies took a long time to conclude, although the threat of

232

D. BONNETTE

loss prompted the rise in the number of friends’ support groups in the two dioceses over time. Empty churches, as picturesque ruins or ancient monuments, were demolished in emblematic cases, projecting an image of decline and decay. This also left many local people with a perception that church redundancies were inevitable, when in some cases greater architectural imagination and more flexible planning laws might have sparked a policy of reinvention, and, crucially for the Church of England, regeneration. Overall, those most affected by church redundancies were the congregations. They and other supportive parishioners appear to have been sidelined by the Commissioners, dioceses and heritage bodies, particularly from 1968. Some people believed that the community knew the local circumstances better, but this view was not widespread (Binney and Burman 1977, p. 33). The policies and procedures were confusing and bureaucratic, resulting in lack of appreciation of the views of others by all parties, and an enduring lack of trust. Since these uneasy beginnings, procedures and processes have been reviewed, and now feature greater transparency and improved communication, especially with parishioners (Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2017). However, problems, tension and lack of trust continue owing to differences of opinion and divergent standpoints. In 2004, the General Synod voted to abolish the ABRC and transfer its work to its own Council for the Care of Churches. Board members were horrified, as ‘impartiality has been the Board’s raison d’ être’, and everyone other than those in the Church wanted ‘non-Church-centric advice’, including the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, English Heritage, the Joint Committee of the National Amenities Societies and the Institute of Historic Buildings Conservation (Church Times 2006). An ABRC spokesman claimed that the board had been established to give people confidence that advice sought by ‘key decision makers’ on the future of a church would be ‘transparently free of pastoral and financial considerations’ (Church Times 2006). Over ten years later, the Taylor Review on church sustainability placed churches’ missionary role fifth after ‘places of celebration, culture, commemoration and community gatherings, and places of sanctuary’ (Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2017, p. 5). The review panel again included high-profile representatives from the heritage sector, and the importance of heritage apparently continued to take precedence, undermining the Church of England’s central mission. In many respects, failure to resolve this tension has held

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

233

back the established Church’s regeneration and continues to do so. Not until 2019 was there an in-depth study of individual churches being considered for closure or going through the closure process (Church Buildings Council 2020). Its findings indicate that little has changed since the inception of PM1968. Historical analysis of the dioceses of Lincoln and Leicester has shown that decision-making on church redundancies cannot ignore pastoral and financial considerations. Cultural tensions in church redundancy remain very relevant to the future at a time when many more church buildings may close forever. This is indeed a matter of national significance.

Notes 1. Yi-Fu Tuan (1977) warns of the dangers of a passion for preservation, where the worship of heritage may find the parish church uneasily presented. 2. AMS was founded for the study and conservation of ancient monuments, historic buildings and fine old craftsmanship; the SPAB, founded by William Morris to counteract highly destructive Victorian ‘restoration’ of medieval buildings, advocated that buildings be protected and repaired; the Georgian Group, founded by Douglas Goldring Lord Derwent, Angus Acworth and Robert Byron in exasperation at the pace and extent of destruction of buildings in London, was initially a sub-group of the SPAB and became independent in 1940; HCPT, a charitable trust founded by a Church of England Commission, was chaired by Ivor Bulmer-Thomas and tasked with raising and distributing funds to churches of architectural and historic significance in poor repair; the Victorian Society, founded by a group of 32 friends including Lady Rosse, John Betjeman and Nikolaus Pevsner against a background of almost universal dislike of Victorian buildings, became well-known for its campaigns to save the Euston Arch and the Coal Exchange in London; founded by Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, FFC members, who included including John Betjeman and John Piper, sought to ‘secure the preservation of churches and chapels, or of any part thereof, in the United Kingdom, whether belonging to or formerly used by the Church of England or by any other religious body … for public access and the benefit of the nation’. 3. The members of the commission were Lord Bridges, permanent secretary of the Treasury, the bishop of Grimsby, the Right Honourable John Edwards, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, the first Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Edward Muir, chair of Surrey Ancient Monuments Society, Dame Evelyn Sharp of the Ministry

234

D. BONNETTE

4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18.

19.

of Housing, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, an archaeologist and president of the Society of Antiquaries, and the Right Honourable Sir Henry Willing, Dean of the Arches and master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. PM1983 widened the criteria to include the contents (S.41, 3(b)), the value of the church or part as part of the landscape (S.41, 3(c)) and the overall importance of such a church or part (S.41, 3(d)). The RCF was responsible for preserving the interests of the nation and the Church of England, churches and parts of churches of historic or architectural interest vested in the fund together with their contents. Lambeth Palace Library (hereafter LPL), Ramsey 141, ff. 681, papers. LPL, Ramsey 141, f. 681 Note for the record from John Hewitt, 9 November 1968. Both archbishops were members of the HCPT, as were the prime minister, six earls, two lords, seven knights of the realm, at least three high-ranking officers from the forces and the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan. Basil Fulford Lowther Clarke (1908–78), secretary of the Oxford Diocesan Advisory Committee for the Council of Care for Churches, was dedicated to the study of ecclesiastical architecture. LPL, Ramsey 164, ff. 148–50 Papers. Bulmer-Thomas retired from the RCF at the end of 1976, followed by Sir David Stephens in 1977 and Gordon Burrett in 1981, who was reappointed in 1993. LPL, Ramsey 164, ff. 148–50 Papers. Debate on a motion about the slow progress of PM1968 raised the issue that resources were insufficient and its powers too narrow. A national organisation for redundant churches was suggested, and the motion was withdrawn. LPL, Ramsey 236, ff. 78–227, 1971–2, pp. 141 and 154. LPL, Ramsey 236, ff. 78–227, 1971–2, p. 154. CC, RC21/249 Letter from ABRC to Church Commissioners, 30 November 1970; Letter from RCF to Church Commissioners, 19th March 1971. CC, RC21/249 Letter from Church Commissioners, 12 November 1971. CC, RC21/249 Letter from AMS, 2 February 1972. LPL, Ramsey 236 ff.113 Archbishop’s correspondence, 8 March 1972. While these discussions were taking place, the Historic Churches Preservation Bill had its second reading in Parliament, presented by Patrick Cormack, MP. This Bill directed local authorities to use their existing powers to grant or lend money to repair and maintain cathedrals and Grade A ecclesiastical buildings, but not all buildings (Hansard 1972a). Grade A was the ecclesiastical equivalent of Grade I until it was changed in 1977. CC, RC21/103 Covenham St Bartholomew.

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

235

20. CC, RC21/103 Covenham St Bartholomew, letter from AMS, 3 February 1986. 21. CC, RC21/103 Covenham St Bartholomew, letter from SAVE, 5/2/1986. 22. CC, RC21/103, Covenham St Bartholomew, letter from SPAB, 6 February 1986. 23. CC, RC21/103, Covenham St Bartholomew, letter from parishioners, 8 February 1986. 24. CC, RC21/103, Covenham St Bartholomew, letter from the Bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles. 25. CC, RC21/445, letter from Friends of Salmonby, 13 September 1976. 26. CC, RC21/445 Letter to the diocese from the Church Commissioners, 16 September 1976. 27. CC, RC21/445 Bishop’s reply, 4 October 1976. 28. LA, Misc. donation 685/445 Salmonby St Margaret. 1977. 29. CC, RC21/445 Petition from Friends of Salmonby, September 1976. 30. LA, RC21/189 Cold Hanworth All Saints, letter, 20 September 1973. 31. The Ministry of Public Buildings and Works merged with other departments to become the Department of the Environment in 1970, under Peter Walker. 32. Telephone interview former parishioner of Owmby, January 2016. 33. Build dates are taken from Pevsner and Harris (1964), which are broadly accurate. Restorations to many of the churches have obliterated original features used to date them. 34. Ronald Williams was bishop from 1953 to 1979 and was apparently John Betjeman’s favourite. He was frequently seen in frock coat, breeches and gaiters and was a pillar of the establishment. 35. By 2018, the percentage of national demolitions had risen from 21 per cent to almost 25 per cent. 36. LA, PAR/9/10 Mr P. Jackson, Lincoln City planning minutes, 9 June 1969, 37. Simon Phipps, bishop of Lincoln (1974–87) was chosen for his ‘pastoral qualities, un-shockability and innate comprehension of human frailty’. His pastoral work was greatly valued. 38. www.midmarshchurches.org.uk (accessed 3 December 2018). The church was largely rebuilt in 1861 by James Fowler in thirteenth-century style, although it retains its tower. 39. East Lindsey Council did not have a conservation officer at the time, nor any policy on redundant churches. There was a view that the standard procedures were a suitable tool, and these were used inflexibly. This was a particular weakness considering the number of potentially redundant churches in its catchment area. Its attitude also appears to have been

236

40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

D. BONNETTE

largely laissez-faire, supporting the views of local objectors. Lincoln redundant churches uses committee questioned this attitude unsuccessfully more than once. CC, RC21/17 Letter from parish council. CC, RC21/173 Letter from Margot Eates, 23 February 1984. CC, RC21/173 Letter from Little Carlton parish council to the bishop, 22 May 1986. The ARBC could require future alternative users to keep the building changes sympathetic and appropriate. CC, RC21/343 Panton St Andrew, letter from Lincoln Diocese church uses committee to the Church Commissioners, 20 September 1974.

References Archival sources CC, RC21/103 Covenham St Bartholomew. CC, RC21/173 Little Carlton correspondence. CC, RC21/249 Letter from ARBC to Church Commissioners, 30 November 1970; letter from Church Commissioners, 12 November 1971; letter from AMS, 2 February 1972. CC, RC21/343 Panton St Andrew, letter from Lincoln Diocese church uses committee to the Church Commissioners, 20 September 1974. CC, RC21/445 Letter from Friends of Salmonby, 13 September 1976. LA, PAR/9/10 Mr P. Jackson, Lincoln City planning minutes, 9 June 1969. LA, RC21/189 Cold Hanworth All Saints, letter, 20 September 1973. LA, Misc. donation 685/445 Salmonby St Margaret. 1977. Lambeth Palace Library, Ramsey papers.

Published sources Archbishops’ Commission. 1960. Redundant Churches Report 1958–60. London: Archbishops’ Commission. Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas. 1990. Faith in the Countryside. Worthing: Churchman Publishing. Archbishops’ Council. 2004. A Measure for Measures: In Mission and Ministry— Report of the Review of the Dioceses, Pastoral and Related Measures. London: Church House. Binney, M., and P. Burman. 1977. Change and Decay: The Future of Our Churches. London: Littlehampton. Bishop’s Commission. 1970. Report on the Future of the Parishes and Churches of Inner Leicester. Leicester: Leicester Diocese.

6

COLLABORATION: CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGENCIES …

237

Brotherton, S. 2017. Faith and an old church: An exploration of the relationship between aspects of religious identity and visitor’s experiences of visiting the redundant church of Evesham St Lawrance. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leicester. Burnham, P. 1995. The Conservation and Repair of Ecclesiastical Buildings. Salisbury: Cathedral Communications. Church Buildings Council. 2020. Struggling Closed and Closing Churches. London: Church Buildings Council. Church of England. 2007. Closed Churches Statistical Database. London: Church of England. Church Times. 1972a. Letter from Eric Thornley. Church Times, 8 September. Church Times. 1972b. Fate of Old Woodhall church. Church Times, 15 September. Church Times. 1976a. Letter from Jack Webb, St Francis’s Vicarage, West Wickham. Church Times, 3 September. Church Times. 1976b. Letter from Paul Faunch, Ecclesiological Society. Church Times, 10 September. Church Times. 2006. Board earmarked to close says it’s not redundant. Church Times, 3 February, p. 4. Department for Culture, and Media and Sport. 2017. The Taylor Review: Sustainability of English Churches and Cathedrals. London: HMSO. Friends of Christ Church, Spitalfields. 1998. Newsletter 10. London: Friends of Christ Church Spitalfields. Hansard. 1972a. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 24 March 1972a. Hansard 833, col. 1859. Hansard. 1972b. House of Lords Parliamentary Debates, 18 April 1972b. Hansard 330, cols. 18–52. Larkham, P.J., and J.L. Nasr. 2012. Decision-making under duress: The treatment of churches in the City of London during and after World War II. Urban History 39: 285–309. Leicester Evening Mail. 1954. Lecture at Leicester Museum. Leicester Evening Mail, 5 March. Lincoln Diocese. 1968. Into Tomorrow: A Report on the Pastoral ReOrganisation. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln. Lincoln Diocese. 1980. Redundant Churches Uses Committee Report. Lincoln Diocese: Lincoln. Louth Standard. 1988. Church clash on the cards. Louth Standard, 26 August. Lowenthal, D. 1998. The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matarasso, F. 1995. Spirit of Place: Redundant Churches as Urban Resources. London: Comedia. Morris, W. 1877. Manifesto of the SPAB. London: SPAB.

238

D. BONNETTE

Pevsner, N., and J. Harris. 1964. The Buildings of England: Lincolnshire. Harmondsworth: Penguin. SAVE. 1976. Press release no. 115, August 1976. London: SAVE Britain’s Heritage. Sleaford Standard. 1974. Two churches redundant. Sleaford Standard, 30 November. The Guardian. 2001. Obituary: The Rt. Rev. Simon Phipps. The Guardian, 2 February. The Independent. 1998. Donald Findlay: Obituary. The Independent, 29 April, p. 20. The Lincolnshire Echo. 1962. Bishop lays foundation of family church. The Lincolnshire Echo, 24 July. The Observer Colour Supplement. 1973. 10 June. The Standard. 1967. Unwanted church is disgrace, says rector. The Standard, 1 December. The Times. 1976. Concern over destruction of redundant churches. The Times, 16 August. The Times. 1979. Obituary: Rt. Revd. Ronald Ralph Williams. The Times, 19 November. The Times. 1998. Obituary: Donald Findlay. The Times, 28 April, p. 21. Tuan, Y.F. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Whyte, W. 2017. Unlocking the Church: The Lost Secrets of Victorian Sacred Space. Oxford: OUP.

CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

This book has investigated the culture of church redundancy and what led to closures in the Church of England between 1945 and 2000, through the lens of case studies of two neighbouring but very different dioceses in the East Midlands. Regional differences are often understated (Cox 1982) and these micro-histories illuminate controversial areas of the Anglican community’s history in the parish. They reveal a story of church redundancy that is not linear or uniform, as it intersects with the wider narrative of social and cultural change and secularisation. A ‘bottom-up’ perspective on important issues is offered, considering how local people experienced churches in the twentieth century. The debate is brought alive when comparing the poignancy of the vicar offering communion to only one person on Christmas day at All Souls, with Ossie Jones in Lincoln who was so charismatic that he regularly filled an entire church. The smaller details, like meeting in local houses because it was too cold in the church, are equally informative, and vestry minutes are rich in human stories. Thus, this study has taken account of many human factors, including legal, social, economic, political and religious trends in community life, linked with, but not driven by, historical precedents. It has also explored rhetoric versus reality in this historical situation, with the aim of modelling key factors that shaped the church redundancy process. The main objective has been to test twentieth-century assumptions, generalisations and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8_7

239

240

D. BONNETTE

misunderstandings that created the impression that closure of church property was inevitable. The investigation has drawn on records from churches, dioceses and Church of England archives, newspaper articles, interviews and questionnaires to determine what motivated local people to abandon church buildings in the dioceses of Leicester and Lincoln. Slippery historical concepts such as faith, religious belief and spirituality, and how sacred spaces might be put to secular use have been explored in detail. A variety of causal factors for church redundancy, arising out of complex local circumstances, have been examined, and the ‘tipping points’ into redundancy have been identified in much of the new case material, an approach that has benefits for the researcher. Analysis of community attitudes to church closures has been accompanied by critical enquiry into whether making churches redundant is a recent historical phenomenon. An extraordinary amount of time was spent on decision-making processes for church redundancies, passion was devoted to protecting church buildings, great energy was expended by many people and large sums of money were spent on conserving a small percentage of Anglican church buildings in England between 1945 and 2000. The Church of England has a division of staff devoted to the church redundancy process and the 2011 pastoral measure is being reviewed. There has been considerable historical debate about declining religious belief, and media headlines about low attendance rates, but why one church remained open while another was unvalued has seldom been explored. Church redundancy has become an accepted feature of modern life, yet few commentators understand how this position was reached for specific churches in individual dioceses. This book has made extensive use of primary research and record linkage to propose a more nuanced historical appreciation of the challenges of church redundancy for the Church of England in the modern era. The evidence for declining church affiliation is overwhelming, and Robin Gill’s (1993, 2003) assertion that it has been a lengthy process of attrition is not disputed here. He rightly states that there is no monocausal explanation for church decline, and in this study, none has been found for church redundancy. Each church in the Leicester and Lincoln Dioceses was made redundant for a range of differing and sometimes overlapping reasons, which not only demonstrated religious decline but also reflected a combination of a changing population, financial challenges, maintenance

7

CONCLUSION

241

issues and lack of clergy on the ground, thereby tipping them into redundancy. The research for this study has focused on a 55-year timeframe in which the Church of England underwent considerable transformation as it faced rapid social and cultural change. Internally, there were clergy shortages, financial pressures, significant legislation, concern about losing its religious presence, an adherence to its traditional parish model and too many churches to sustain. It was also grappling with external challenges such as demographic changes, declining attendance and changing views of religious authority. Decision-making by local authority planning and education departments grappling with modernity and rapid social change needed to be considered too. Arguably, diocesan authorities neither kept up with the impact of fluctuating demography on their doorstep in individual parishes, nor reformed fast enough to deal with the worrying changing contexts (highlighted by McLeod 2000; Gill 2003; Jackson 2005; Morris 2012). Both Leicestershire and Lincolnshire offered too much religious choice for parishioners. Lincolnshire had a plethora of Anglican and Methodist churches in small villages, and Leicester was historically a radical religious city offering a wide choice. However, as demand declined Christian denominations were forced to rationalise, especially in the rural parishes in Lincolnshire, which were intentionally kept small. It was not as easy for the Church of England to close churches as it was for Nonconformist faiths and thus the social presence was maintained for longer. Analysis of individual church attendance and communicant statistics for churches made redundant has revealed that the churches had low attendance for many years, and in both dioceses remained open for very long periods. There were fluctuations in communicant statistics for the redundant churches, and they were not uniform as Cox (2003) discovered. In rural areas, there was a nuanced and very slow decline, with very small congregations taking Holy Communion over many decades, which substantiates findings by McLeod 2000 and Field (2015, 2017, 2019). Attendance at Easter was much greater than for normal Sunday services but also fluctuated over time and declined. In urban areas, communicant numbers for redundant churches were uneven and generally lower than other city churches that remained open, although those were not high either. An ancient church might attract larger numbers if it was easy to journey there. Sudden drops did occur in urban areas, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, but this was closely related to dramatic urban change,

242

D. BONNETTE

where housing was swept away, and population dispersed. Lively churchmanship or a determined incumbent may have sustained some churches for longer than others, but overall, there is evidence for Brown’s assertion (2001) that suburbanisation accelerated the decline of Christian worship. The new churches on the estates did not necessarily attract the anticipated congregation. The two dioceses made pragmatic decisions about closure based on empirical data, even though it may have been flawed. They did not capture the importance of the church to the Anglican congregations. However, low attendance and weak communicant involvement did not make church redundancies inevitable. Each church reached a ‘tipping point’ after suffering from, and often fighting off, the impacts of a range of internal and external factors. The implication of each factor differed for each church, and there has been little appreciation of these causal relationships and their relative local importance. A significant factor for both Leicester and Lincoln dioceses was demographic forces which affected congregation size (Currie et al. 1977). Disparate urban initiatives in Leicester split historic parishes, blurred boundaries, drastically reduced the population and left churches isolated from prospective worshippers (Simmons 1974; Shaw and Robinson 1998), leaving behind a ‘holy huddle’ as experienced at St George in Leicester. It was only the loyalty of a small congregation to a specific church that kept some open for longer than was financially viable. In the East Midlands, rural depopulation carried on for much longer than in other areas of the country as Weekley (1988) described. In both dioceses, this created a high percentage of very small parishes but the impact of depopulation on church growth was more evident in the Lincoln Diocese. Many public services were lost, including schools, and this meant churches suffered from an inability to recruit from the area (Voas and Crockett 2005). It was a particular problem for the Lincoln Diocese because it had too many tiny churches, which it believed were not sustainable or desirable. A succession of bishops in the diocese tried to deal with the problem in different ways but aspects of PM1968 appeared to thwart their attempts, rather than support them. The diocesan response to increasing financial problems and clergy shortages was pastoral reorganisation. This grouped churches, which on the one hand supported weaker churches but on the other created further long-lasting problems. While the Leicester Diocese may have been more successful in keeping its buildings open, both dioceses suffered from innovations that were implemented unsystematically, and lack of

7

CONCLUSION

243

a proper strategy or consideration of its effect on individual churches. The approach of using ‘one successful strategy to fit all’ was perpetuated, without properly evaluating its long-term effect, a trend Morris (2012) and others highlight. Thus, Lincoln suffered from too many large groups which marginalised the clergy and made congregations feel increasingly sidelined. Congregations had an emotional attachment to their church, believing that they had lost their individual church identity and important social networks. Clergy were not happy with this either, which added to difficulty recruiting new incumbents. Teams of clergy did not necessarily allow for career progression, and there were echoes of disenchantment demonstrated by individual incumbents (Field 2014) in both dioceses. A spike in the number of closures occurred when the Church Commissioners made unwise financial decisions and dioceses, already struggling with manpower issues were forced to respond. They could no longer support churches financially as they had done previously. The public relations problem that this bequeathed to the modern Church of England was incalculable: the Anglican community seemed always to be asking for money in places where people felt increasingly disconnected from the missionary vision of a ‘cure of souls’. Churches were already being funded by congregations rather than parishioners, and unrealistic financial targets were set for new income generation. Ordinary people gradually became indifferent to the spiritual ethos of an established Church that always seemed to be presenting them with a collection box (Green 1996; Flew 2016). It also began to alter the relationship between congregations and the dioceses, with some PCCs deciding not to pay the required amounts because of disagreement with diocesan financial priorities. Financial challenges became another tipping point into closure for small congregations that had managed to survive for many years without growth. There is little historical research on how Christian communities felt about losing their churches and it is difficult to confirm whether local communities valued their churches for religious reasons, although theologians argue that church buildings are acts of faith in themselves. The low level of formal objections to closure indicates, at best, parishioner indifference to religious worship, despite congregations of individual churches protesting. These were largely ignored but once a building was threatened with demolition views changed. Non-churchgoing parishioners were more persuaded by material cultural considerations, nostalgia and heritage issues than spiritual concerns, with little regret for the loss of Christian

244

D. BONNETTE

heritage. They viewed the building as belonging to the village rather than to the Church and incumbent, and if a church was in a picturesque setting, threat of redundancy might provoke a local campaign to save it. Nevertheless, loyalty of a small Anglican congregation to a specific church appears to have endured for many years. While objections to closure for worship were relatively uncommon, few people believed that the dead should be disturbed in privately purchased churchyards. Each parish community continued to care about the dead, as Thomas Laqueur (2015) has explored and graveyard attachment ran deep, as Snell (2016) and Rugg (2013) have mapped. This emotional perspective was echoed by local authority officers when refusing approval for conversion into a residence. Church authorities, local authorities and heritage organisations very rarely recognised or consulted local people about the parish church’s place in the community, assuming lack of attendance meant indifference. A sense of frustration that no one was listening grew over time, as evidenced in post-2000 documents particularly. They reveal increasing discontent with diocesan decision-making and describe overt attempts by PCCs to force a change of approach. People who expressed no religious faith began to save churches from redundancy and keep them open for a combination of spiritual and social purposes. This changing cultural attitude at the end of the twentieth century and its effect on church attendance merits further study in other regions and nationally. The redundancy process itself, from the early stirrings of interest to the activity created by the various pastoral measures, was characterised by a struggle to collaborate or appreciate different perspectives. Too few politicians understood the important legislation they were debating or the consequences for parish churches (Watson 2013). An unwieldy PM1968 created significant expectations for parishes and dioceses, which they struggled to fulfil. At diocesan level, extensive pastoral reorganisation was undertaken to cope with change, but local oversight of the plight of individual churches was less evident. Ad hoc diocesan strategy and failure to consider potentially negative outcomes damaged central-local relations over time (Gill 2003: Jackson 2005). Interventions were made by a range of influential bodies, which disgruntled diocesan officers saw as exercising power, without corresponding action or responsibility. What began as a partnership to conserve architectural heritage, at times became an adversarial tussle over ownership of church fabric, especially if demolition was suggested. Despite pursuing the worthy cause of protecting

7

CONCLUSION

245

the national heritage, heritage bodies could unwittingly contribute to the difficulties suffered by individual congregations in the two case study regions. Art historians and conservation experts were part of a small social elite who dictated tastes, which caused many Victorian churches to be discarded, while older properties were designated national treasures (Laurajane Smith 2006; Patrick Wright 2009). This approach was successful in terms of promoting heritage and conservation values more broadly in society, in an era of concern about destruction of country houses and their churches, but it was based on the personal preferences of those heading heritage organisations. In emphasising expert conservation, heritage bodies placed very high and sometimes unachievable expectations and financial burdens on tiny PCCs. Even if a church building had all the negative factors that might tip it into closure, and even if it was in a poor state of repair, this did not inevitably lead to redundancy. Historical and architectural significance might take precedence over diocesan decision-making to protect and conserve historic church buildings deemed to be of outstanding architectural value. Despite a lack of agreed and transparent criteria, the aesthetic appeal of a church building might save it from closure, demolition, a secular alternative use or non-Christian worship. As a result of housing clearances, many Victorian churches in cities became isolated from their communities. They were also easier to close and demolish, since fewer people would object because their style had fallen out of fashion. Thus, redundancies targeted buildings that looked old-fashioned, architecturally and in terms of community appeal. Alternative uses of church buildings are an interesting historical prism through which to tease out attitudes towards churches and religion. For some, churches were the subject of deeply held religious convictions. Others, who may not have attended the church or be concerned about its closure, were very exercised by unwanted churches becoming residences or being given other secular uses, such as restaurants and nightclubs. This cultural trend may have arisen from an unconsciously embedded Christian cultural attitude. Certainly, there was significant antipathy towards the controversial proposal for other faiths to be considered as new owners, but whether this arose from a Christian or racist perspective was not always clear. Concerns about immigration in the 1960s and 1970s are difficult to unpick from claims of spiritual attachment to the Anglican community in the Midlands. Local parochial community buildings in Leicester were taken over by non-Christian faiths, but the Christian presence in the city

246

D. BONNETTE

was already declining, although it did arguably become more religious therefore overall (Woodhead 2016). Yet, church redundancy was not an inevitable outcome for churches with low attendance, as individual stories demonstrate. A determined incumbent could resurrect a declining church; a weaker church placed within a group of stronger ones could be sustained for long periods; a financially healthy community could choose to support its church; an architecturally outstanding historical building could be important to a community; a bishop with an appreciation of architecture could ensure its survival; and a new housing estate could produce the next generation of churchgoers. More representative micro-histories are required to gain a more nuanced historical sense of regional and intra-regional trends over time. Only then will the complex nature of central-local relations be revealed in its true historical context. Ironically, the Church of England, which was itself a product of significant historical change, turned out to be a poor custodian of its own history, and seldom learned the muchneeded strategic lessons of its individual church histories and their church redundancy schemes. It is hoped, therefore, that this book will contribute to future debates. Times have changed since the period covered by this book, and a brief reflection on the two decades since 2000 is required. The bureaucratic redundancy processes remained very similar throughout the twentieth century, until efforts were renewed to simplify them in the twentyfirst century. Discussions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic focused on more creative and sustainable ways to use redundant church buildings without recourse to public funding, placing the responsibility firmly back in parishioners’ hands (Department of Culture, Media and Sport 2017). Very broad consultation has led to the unsurprising conclusion that parish churches must become vibrant hubs at the centre of communities, offering services beyond places of worship. The importance of heritage apparently continues to take precedence, undermining the Church of England’s central mission. In many respects, failure to resolve this tension has held back the established Church’s regeneration and continues to do so. Many redundant churches have become community centres providing a range of parish services, from staging choral musical festivals, to offering childcare facilities, and in some urban areas becoming eating places for morning coffee or lunch. The café church movement has proved popular, particularly in urban areas, which was not the case earlier in the twentieth

7

CONCLUSION

247

century. Some historical trends are certainly coming round again. Maintenance is still an issue for many churches, and they continue to suffer severe financial problems. Few PCCs enjoy talking about sustainability, but it is as much an economic necessity today as it was in the recent past. The COVID-19 pandemic will accelerate the rate of church closures in the future, and the dioceses of Leicester and Lincoln appear to be planning to repeat some of the strategies used in the past. Financial matters have considerably influenced all churches’ viability and cultural tensions remain very relevant to the future. If indeed, over 360 churches will be made redundant by 2026 there are important questions to consider. Funding a great many more outstanding redundant churches in a short space of time would be very costly. Will current processes and systems be able to manage? How prepared would the public be for a controversial decision not to keep them all (DeSilvey 2012) if finding alternative use was too challenging? How would parishioners perceive a building left to curated decay (DeSilvey 2017)? Are vested Anglican church buildings already over-represented in a secular, multi-cultural society? The Church of England, dioceses, heritage bodies and communities have much to discuss and agree. It has been a challenge to bring together the breadth of themes in church redundancy, as the issue is very complex, and core themes such as secularisation must be interwoven with others. The dioceses of Lincoln and Leicester are two of over 40 dioceses, and further research into other dioceses will add to the understanding about Anglican church redundancy. It has proved to be an important historical prism through which to examine future challenges for the Church of England, as more church doors close forever.

References Archbishops’ Commission on Rural Areas, Faith in the Countryside (Worthing, 1990). Brewitt-Taylor, S. 2013. The invention of a ‘secular society’? Christianity and the sudden appearance of secularization discourses in the British national media, 1961–4. Twentieth Century British History 24: 327–350. Brewitt-Taylor, S. 2018. Christian Radicalism in the Church of England and the Invention of the British Sixties 1957–1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, C.G. 2001. The Death of Christian Britain. London: Taylor & Francis.

248

D. BONNETTE

Cox, J. 1982. The English Churches in a Secular Society: Lambeth, 1870–1930. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cox, J. 2003. Master narratives of long term religious change. In The Decline of Christendom in Western Europe: 1750–2000, ed. H. McLeod and W. Ustorf, 201–217. Cambridge: CUP. Currie, R., A. Gilbert, and L. Horsley. 1977. Churches and Churchgoers: Patterns of Church Growth in the British Isles since 1700. Oxford: Clarendon. Department of Culture, Media and Sport, The Taylor Review: Sustainability of English Churches and Cathedrals (London, 2017). DeSilvey, C. 2012. Making sense of transience: An anticipatory history. Cultural Geographies 19: 31–54. DeSilvey, C. 2017. Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Field, C.D. 2014. Another window on British secularization: Public attitudes to church and clergy since the 1960s. Contemporary British History 28 (2): 1–29. Field, C.D. 2015. Britain’s Last Religious Revival? Quantifying Belonging, Behaving and Believing in the Long 1950s. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Field, C.D. 2017. Secularization in the Long 1960s: Numerating Religion in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Field, C.D. 2019. Periodizing Secularization: Religious Allegiance and Attendance in Britain, 1880–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flew, S. 2016. Philanthropy and the Funding of the Church of England, 1856– 1914. Abingdon: Routledge. Gill, R. 1993. Myth of the Empty Church. London: SPCK. Gill, R. 2003. The Empty Church Revisited. Aldershot: Ashgate. Green, S.D.J. 1996. Religion in the Age of Decline: Organisation and Experience in Industrial Yorkshire, 1870–1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, B. 2005. The Road to Growth: Towards a Thriving Church. London: Church House. Laqueur, T. 2015. The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains. Woodstock: Princeton University Press. McLeod, D.H. 2000. Secularisation in Western Europe, 1948–1914. London: Palgrave. Morris, J. 2012. Secularisation and religious experience: Arguments in the historiography of modern British religion. The Historical Journal 55: 195–219. Rugg, J. 2013. Choice and constraint in the burial landscape: Re-evaluating twentieth-century commemoration in the English churchyard. Mortality 18: 215–234. Shaw, K., and F. Robinson. 1998. Learning from experience? Reflections on two decades of British urban policy. The Town Planning Review 69: 49–63.

7

CONCLUSION

249

Simmons, J. 1974. Leicester Past and Present, Volume 2: Modern City: 1860–1974. London: Methuen. Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge. Snell, K.D.M. 2009. Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700–1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Snell, K.D.M. 2016. Spirits of Community: English Senses of Belonging and Loss, 1750–2000. London: Bloomsbury. Voas, D. 2017. Intentionality, numerical growth and the rural church. Rural Theology 15: 2–11. Voas, D., and A. Crockett. 2005. Religion in Britain: Neither believing nor belonging. Sociology 39: 11–28. Watson, S. 2013. Country matters: The rural-historic as an authorised heritage discourse in England. In Heritage and Tourism: Place, Encounter, Engagement, ed. R. Staiff, R. Bushell, and S. Watson, 103–126. Abingdon: Routledge. Weekley, I. 1988. Rural depopulation and counterurbanisation: A paradox. Area 20: 127–134. Woodhead, L. 2016. Neither religious nor secular: The British situation and its implications for religion–state relations. In Contesting Secularism: Comparative Perspectives, ed. A. Berg-Sorensen, 137–161. Abingdon: Routledge. Wright, P. 2009. On Living in an Old Country: The National Past in Contemporary Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Redundant Anglican Churches in Leicestershire Closed Before the Pastoral Measure 1968 (Where Information Is Available) Leicester Christ Church Leicester St Luke Leicester St Elizabeth Leicester St Faith Knaptoft St Nicholas ruin Six Hills Old Chapel

Leicester St Oswald Leicester St Silas Leicester St Thomas Blaston St Michael Long Whatton All Saints Woodville St Stephen

Dishley All Saints Elmsthorpe St Mary - ruin Hathern All Saints ruin Hemington St Mary Obaston destroyed 1848

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8

251

252

APPENDICES

Appendix 2: Redundant Anglican Churches in Leicestershire, 1968-20001 Church

Century built

Legal redundancy

Future

Allexton St Peter Aylestone Park St James Beeby All Saints Belgrave St Michael & All Angels Brentingby St Mary tower Edmondthorpe St Michael Garthorpe St Mary Hinckley Holy Trinity (old) Hoton St Leonard Knighton St Michael Leicester All Saints Leicester All Souls Leicester St George Leicester St John Leicester St Leonard Leicester St Mark Leicester St Matthew Loughborough Holy Trinity (old) Market Harborough ruin Neville Holt St Mary Stapleford St Mary Magdalene Stretton-en-le-Field St Michael Willesley St Thomas Withcote Chapel

Pre 15th 19th Pre 15th 19th

2000 1988 1990 1993

RCF Demolished RCF Radio station

Pre 15th

1974

RCF

Pre 15th

1999

RCF

Pre 15th 19th

1999 1973

RCF Demolished

Pre 15th 19th Pre 15th 20th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th

1989 1996 1986 1988 1983 1982 1984 2005 1988 1971

Residential Demolished RCF Other Christian faith Other Christian faith Residential Demolished Banqueting hall Demolished Demolished

17th

1979

Ruin

Pre 15th 18th

1984 1996

Educational RCF

Pre 15th

1986

RCF

Pre 15th 16th

1988 1980

Scout museum RCF

1 The date that the redundancy scheme became effective under section 42 of the Pastoral Measure 1968.

APPENDICES

253

Appendix 3: Churches in Lincolnshire Made Redundant Before 1968 Church

Future

Date

Castle Carlton Holy Cross Walesby Lincoln St Margaret Lincoln St Peter at Arches Boston St Aiden Waddington St Michael (old) East Allington St James Gayton Le Marsh St George Winceby St Margaret LIncoln St Andrew Lincoln St Martin Woodhall Spa St Andrew Calceby St Andrew Grimsby St John the Divine Grimsby St Andrew Northolme St Thomas Risby St Andrew Skeldyke Mission Woodthorpe

Demolished Friends Demolished Demolished Demolished Bombed Demolished Demolished Demolished Demolished Demolished Demolished Ruins Demolished Demolished Demolished ? Demolished ?

1902 1914 1930 1933 1940 1941 1953 1964 1964 1968 1970 1957 ? 1950s? 1961 Before 1820

Appendix 4: Redundant Anglican Churches in the Lincoln Diocese Since the Pastoral Measure 19682 Church

Built

Legal closure

Future

Amber Hill St John Asgarby St Swithin Asterby St Peter Aubourn St Peter Authorpe St Margaret Barnetby-le-Wold St Mary

19th 18th Pre-15th 19th 19th Pre-15th

1999 1986 1988 1973 1983 1974

Residential Demolished Monument Part demolition/part trust Demolished RCF (continued)

2 Four churches were closed prior to formal PM1968 processes. Future use is the first after being formally closed. Some churches had multiple alternative uses.

254

APPENDICES

(continued) Church

Built

Legal closure

Future

Barton-on-Humber St Peter Boston St James Brauncewell All Saints Broxholme All Saints Burringham St John the Baptist Burwell St Michael Buslingthorpe St Michael Caenby Castle Carlton site Chapel Hill Holy Trinity Claxby St Andrew Cleethorpes St Aidan Clixby All Hallows Cold Hanworth All Saints Covenham St Bartholomew Cumberworth St Helen Driby St Michael East Heckington St John Gainsborough Holy Trinity Goltho St George Great Grimsby St Luke Great Steeping All Saints (old church) Grimsby All Saints Grimsby St Stephen Haceby Saint Margaret Haltham St Benedict Haugham All Saints Hawerby St Margaret Holywell St Wilfrid Horncastle Holy Trinity Kingerby St Peter Lincoln St Mark Lincoln St Michael on the Mount Lincoln St Paul Little Carlton St Edith Little Cawthorpe St Helen Low Toynton St Peter Maltby-le-Marsh All Saints Manton St Hibald

Pre-15th 19th 16th 19th 19th

1976 1970 1978 1992 1985

English Heritage Demolished Trust Residential RCF

Pre-15th Pre-15th 15th Pre-15th 19th 19th 20th Pre-15th 19th Pre-15th Pre-15th 19th 19th 19th 16th 20th 18th

1982 1987 1982 1983 1997 1990 1981 1974 1986 1989 1990 1978 1981 1973 1978 1972 1973

RCF RCF Monument Part demolished Residential Studio workshop Part community RCF Craft/residential Trust Residential Residential Residential Cultural RCF Demolished RCF

20th 20th Pre-15th Pre-15th 19th Pre-15th 18th 19th Pre-15th 19th 19th

1997 1976 1976 1979 1983 1989 1981 1979 1982 1972 1998

Demolished Demolished RCF RCF RCF Monument Private chapel Trust RCF Demolished Residential

19th 19th 19th 19th Pre-15th 19th

1971 1993 1997 1977 2009 1998

Demolished Demolished RCF Private use Arts and crafts Residential (continued)

APPENDICES

(continued) Church

Built

Legal closure

Future

Miningsby St Andrew Moorby All Saints Muckton Holy Trinity Normanby St Peter Normanton St Nicholas North Cockerington St Mary North Elkington St Helen North Ormsby St Helen Old Woodhall St Margaret Oxcombe All Saints Panton St Andrew Redbourne St Andrew Salmonby St Margaret Saltfleetby All Saints Saltfleetby St Clement Saltfleetby St Peter Old Tower Scunthorpe St John Skidbrooke St Botolph Snarford St Lawrence Sotby St Peter South Kelsey Burial Chapel South Reston St Edith South Somercotes St Peter Spanby St Nicholas Stamford St Michael Sutterby St John the Baptist Theddlethorpe All Saints Toft-next-Newton St Peter & Paul Tothill St Mary Waddingworth St Margaret Waithe West Barkwith All Saints Wildsworth St John the Divine Wispington St Margaret Withern St Margaret Wood Enderby St Benedict Wragby Old Church (remains) Wyham All Saints Yarburgh St John the Baptist

Pre-15th 19th 19th Pre-15th Pre-15th Pre-15th 19th 19th Pre-15th 19th 18th Pre-15th 15th Pre-15th 19th 15th 19th Pre-15th Pre-15th Pre-15th 20th 19th Pre-15th 19th Pre-15th Pre-15th Pre-15th 19th

1975 1982 1985 1977 1976 1986 1984 1986 1972 1980 1982 1979 1977 1976 1977 1976 2000 1975 1995 1986 1983 1982 1988 1977 1981 1972 1976 1989

Demolished Demolished Demolished RCF RCF RCF Residential Residential Demolished Monument Storage/residential RCF Demolished RCF Craft/residential Monument Art centre RCF RCF Monument Demolished Demolished RCF Storage RCF Monument RCF Residential

18th 19th Pre-15th 19th 19th 19th 15th 19th 18th Pre-15th 15th

1976 1978 2004 1984 1985 1978 1985 1979 1981 1984 1982

Demolished Storage RCF Demolished Demolished Storage Residential Storage Demolished Monument RCF

255

256

APPENDICES

Appendix 5: Twentieth-Century Pastoral Reorganisation In The Lincoln Diocese---Where Information Is Available Date

Organisation

3/54

Stamford: St George, St Michael, St Paul, St Andrew, St Stephen Theddlethorpe St Helen w Mabletherpe St Peter & Theddlethorpe All Saints union Mablethorpe w Stane, Theddlethorpe St Helen w All Saints Braceborough, Carlby, Careby w Holywell Careby w Holywell w Aunby, Little Bytham, Castle Bytham Spridlington w Saxby w Firsby, Hackthorn w Cold Hanworth Faldingworth w Buslingthorpe, Toft w Newton Faldingworth w Buslingthorpe, Spridlington w Saxby w Firsby Panton w Wragby, Langton by Wragby Yarborough & Conisholme union Alvingham w North Cockerington & South Cockerington union Yarborough, Grainthorpe w Conisholme Yarborough, Alvingham w North & South Cockerington Grainthorpe w Conisholme, Marshchapel, North Coates Ravendale East & West, West Rasen w Hatcliffe, Beelsby Ravendale East w West w Hatcliffe, Beelsby, Ashby w Fenby & Brigsley Aunsby w Dembleby, Newton w Haceby Kirton Lindsey, Manton, Grayingham South Reston, North Reston & Castle Carlton union Withern, North Reston w South Reston w Castle Carlton Withern, North Reston w South Reston w Castle Carlton, Strubby w Woodthorpe North Somercotes, South Somercotes 11/58 Lincoln: St Mary below hill w St Benedict, St Martin w St Peter in the Arches united benefice

1929 2/54 5/54 renewed 12/60 1966 7/54 3/55 1964 4/54 1929 1931 1/ 54 renewed 5/60 1966 1966 7/54 renewal 2/58 renewal 5/62 1966 8/68 8/54 3/55 1915 1966 2/56 Renewal 11/58 5/59

(continued)

APPENDICES

257

(continued) Date

Organisation

1922 1928

Sotby w Market Stainton union Hatton & Sotby, Benniworth, Market Stainton & Ranby union Hemingby, Baumber w Sturton Magna, Hatton w Sotby New district Lincoln St John Langton by Partney & Sutterby union Aswardby w Sausethorpe, Mavis Enderby w Raithby, Langton w Sutterby Aswardby w Sausethorpe, Langton w Sutterby, Spilsby w Hundleby Bucknall, Horsington w Stixwold, Kirkby on Bain, Haltham w Roughton, Martin w Thornton Bucknall, Horsington w Stixwold, Kirkby on Bain, Haltham w Roughton, Martin w Thornton, Tumby, Scrivelsby w Dalderby Brauncewell w Dunsby w Anwick disunion Brauncewell w Dunsby, North & South Leasingham Brauncewell w Leasingham plurality Anderby w Cumberworth, Huttoft Asterby w Goulceby, Donnington on Bain, Gayton Le Wold w Biscathorpe, Scramblesby w Caukwell, Stringot Grimsby: St Andrew, St Luke union of parishes South Ormsby Group Caenby w Glentham union Caenby w Glentham, Owmby w Normanby East & West Barkwith, East & West Torrington, Hainton w Sixhills, South Willingham Ellington & Wispington union Edlington w Wispington, Gautby w Waddingworth, Minting, Thimbleby Snarford & Snelland union Lissington w Holton cum Beckering, Snelland w Snarford, Wickenby w Friesthorpe Aisthorpe w West Thorpe w Scampton, Brattleby plurality Holbeach & Holbeach Hurn - parish boundaries altered Holbeach Hurn & Drove End, Lutton

3/60 10/60 1923 11/60 6/68 2/60

1966

2/61 2/61 1964 2/61 renewal 1967 8/61

9/61 Renewal 11/61 1922 6/63 3/63

1920 5/63 1923 3/63 1964 1964 1964

(continued)

258

APPENDICES

(continued) Date

Organisation

1930 1931 1966 1920 1966

Maltby Le Marsh & Strubby union Saleby & Beesby union Maltby Le Marsh, Salesby w Beesby North Ormsby & Whyham w Cadeby union Fotherby w Brackenbury w Utterby w Little Grimsby, Ludborough, North Ormsby w Wyham & Cadeby North Hykeham & South Hykeham w Aubourne Aubourne w Haddington, Bassingham, Carlton Le Moorland w Stapleford, Skinnand, Thurlby w Norton Disney Salmonby & Tetford union Tetford & Salmonby union parishes Saltfleetby: All Saints w St Pater, St Clements boundary adjustment Saltfleetby All Saints, St Peter, St Clements & Skidbrooke w Saltfleet Haven plurality Lincoln St Peter in Eastgate w Lincoln St Margaret & Lincoln St Nicholas & Lincoln St John in Newport - alteration to boundaries Part Lincoln St Benedict w St Peter in Arches & St Mary below hill, rest of Lincoln St Benedict w St Peter in arches & St Martin Lincoln: St Mary Magdalene & St Paul, St Michael union of benefices and parishes Lincoln: St Peter at Gowts & St Andrew union benefices and parishes Lincoln: St Faith, St Mary Wigford w St Martin union benefices Lincoln: St Faith & St Martin w St Peter of the Arches, St Mary Wigford w St Benedict Heckington & Howell union Heckington & Howell union parishes Reducing 42 rural deaneries to 23 South Ormsby Group Saxilby, Broxholme Grimsby: St Mary & St James, St Paul, Good Shepherd union parishes

1921 1966

1929 1966 1967 1970 1931

1931

1968 11/68

1925 12/68 1969 4/69 9/69 11/69

APPENDICES

Appendix 6: Flowchart Process for Alternative Use

259

260

APPENDICES

Appendix 7: Dates of Informal Closure and Formal Redundancy Church Leicester Diocese Allexton St Peter Aylestone Park St James Beeby All Saints Belgrave St Michael & All Angels Brentingby St Mary tower Edmondthorpe St Michael Garthorpe St Mary Hinckley Holy Trinity (old) Hoton St Leonard Knighton St Michael Leicester All Saints Leicester All Souls Leicester St George Leicester St John Leicester St Leonard Leicester St Mark Leicester St Matthew Loughborough Holy Trinity (old) Market Harborough ruin Neville Holt St Mary Stapleford St Mary Magdalene Stretton-en-le-Field St Michael Willesley St Thomas Withcote Chapel Lincoln Diocese Amber Hill St John Asgarby St Swithin Asterby St Peter Aubourn St Peter Authorpe St Margaret Barnetby-le-Wold St Mary Barton-on-Humber St Peter Boston St James Brauncewell All Saints Broxholme All Saints

District

Informal closure

Legal redundancy

Rural Greater Leicester Rural Greater Leicester

1977 1988 1990 1982

2000 1988 1990 1993

Rural Rural Rural Town Rural Greater Leicester Inner Leicester Inner Leicester Inner Leicester Inner Leicester Inner Leicester Inner Leicester Inner Leicester Town

1970 1995 1987 1909 1987 1995 1972 1985 1969 1973 1981 1981 1984 ?

1974 1999 1999 1973 1989 1996 1986 1988 1983 1982 1984 2005 1988 1971

Town Rural Rural Rural

? 1983 1995 1982

1979 1984 1996 1986

Rural Rural Boston

1987 1978 1992

1988 1980 1999

N. Kesteven East Lindsey N. Kesteven East Lindsey Humberside Humberside Boston N. Kesteven West Lindsey

1961 1983 1964 1983 1951 1971 1969 1968 1988

1986 1988 1973 1983 1974 1976 1970 1978 1992 (continued)

APPENDICES

261

(continued) Church

District

Informal closure

Legal redundancy

Burringham St John the Baptist Burwell St Michael Buslingthorpe St Michael Caenby Castle Carlton site Chapel Hill Holy Trinity Claxby St Andrew Cleethorpes St Aidan Clixby All Hallows Cold Hanworth All Saints Covenham St Bartholomew Cumberworth St Helen Driby St Michael East Heckington St John Gainsborough Holy Trinity Goltho St George Great Grimsby St Luke Great Steeping All Saints (old church) Grimsby All Saints Grimsby St Stephen Haceby Saint Margaret Haltham St Benedict Haugham All Saints Hawerby St Margaret Holywell St Wilfrid Horncastle Holy Trinity Kingerby St Peter Lincoln St Mark Lincoln St Michael on the Mount Lincoln St Paul Little Carlton St Edith Little Cawthorpe St Helen Low Toynton St Peter Maltby-le-Marsh All Saints Manton St Hibald Miningsby St Andrew Moorby All Saints Muckton Holy Trinity Normanby St Peter

Humberside

1976

1985

East Lindsey West Lindsey West Lindsey East Lindsey Boston East Lindsey Humberside West Lindsey West Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey N. Kesteven West Lindsey West Lindsey Humberside East Lindsey

1980 1982 1953 ? 1982 1980 1979 1968 1973 1977 1976 1970 1975 1970 1970 1969 1963

1982 1987 1982 1983 1997 1990 1981 1974 1986 1989 1990 1978 1981 1973 1978 1972 1973

Humberside Humberside N. Kesteven East Lindsey East Lindsey Humberside S. Kesteven East Lindsey West Lindsey Lincoln Lincoln

? 1972 1967 1977 1980 1974 ? 1979 1977 1969 1995

1997 1976 1976 1979 1983 1989 1981 1979 1982 1972 1998

Lincoln East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey Humberside East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey West Lindsey

1965 1980 1996 1960 1994 1977 1975 1974 ? 1974

1971 1993 1997 1977 2009 1998 1975 1982 1985 1977 (continued)

262

APPENDICES

(continued) Church

District

Informal closure

Legal redundancy

Normanton St Nicholas North Cockerington St Mary North Elkington St Helen North Ormsby St Helen Old Woodhall St Margaret Oxcombe All Saints Panton St Andrew Redbourne St Andrew Salmonby St Margaret Saltfleetby All Saints Saltfleetby St Clement Saltfleetby St Peter Old Tower Scunthorpe St John Skidbrooke St Botolph Snarford St Lawrence Sotby St Peter South Kelsey Burial Chapel South Reston St Edith South Somercotes St Peter Spanby St Nicholas Stamford St Michael Sutterby St John the Baptist Theddlethorpe All Saints Toft-next-Newton St Peter & Paul Tothill St Mary Waddingworth St Margaret Waithe West Barkwith All Saints Wildsworth St John the Divine Wispington St Margaret Withern St Margaret Wood Enderby St Benedict Wragby Old Church (remains) Wyham All Saints Yarburgh St John the Baptist

S. Kesteven East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey West Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey Humberside East Lindsey West Lindsey East Lindsey West Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey N. Kesteven S. Kesteven East Lindsey East Lindsey West Lindsey

1969 1980 1971 1980 1962 1979 1956 1970 1966 1971 1971 1972 1984 1969 1986 1980 1905 ? 1987 1970 1963 1955 1972 1985

1976 1986 1984 1986 1972 1980 1982 1979 1977 1976 1977 1976 2000 1975 1995 1986 1983 1982 1988 1977 1981 1972 1976 1989

East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey East Lindsey West Lindsey

1957 1968 1995 1980 1973

1976 1978 2004 1984 1985

East East East East East East

1975 1973 1974 1964 1982 ?

1978 1985 1979 1981 1984 1982

Lindsey Lindsey Lindsey Lindsey Lindsey Lindsey

APPENDICES

263

Appendix 8: Heritage Amenity Societies Georgian Group—Initially a sub-group of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, it became independent in 1940. Prominent members included John Betjeman, John Summerson (University College, London), James Lees-Milne (Oxford) and Christopher Hussey (Christ Church, Oxford). Ancient Monument Society was founded for the study and conservation of ancient monuments, historic buildings and fine old craftsmanship. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings was founded by William Morris (Oxford University). Morris wanted to counteract the highly destructive Victorian ‘restoration’ of medieval buildings and the society advocated that buildings were protected and repaired. Historic Churches Preservation Trust —a charitable trust founded by a Church of England Commission. Chaired by Ivor Bulmer-Thomas (St John’s Oxford) and tasked to raise and distribute funds to churches of architectural and historic significance in poor repair. Victorian Society founded by a group of 32 friends, including Lady Rosse, John Betjeman (Magdalene, Oxford) and Nikolaus Pevsner, (Leipzig) against a background of almost universal dislike of Victorian buildings. A small and not widely known society in the 1960s. It became more well-known for its campaigns for the Euston Arch and the Coal Exchange in London. The Chairman was Viscount Esher, a patron of the arts of the old school and already chairman of the SPAB. Friends of Friendless Churches founded by Ivor Bulmer-Thomas. Members wanted to ‘secure the preservation of churches and chapels, or of any part thereof, in the United Kingdom, whether belonging to or formerly used by the Church of England or by any other religious body….for public access and the benefit of the nation’. Members included John Betjeman and John Piper. Piper worked on the Shell Guides for Betjeman. SAVE established in the European Architectural Heritage Year. The membership included architectural historians, journalists and planners. Twentieth-Century Society/Thirties Society members saw a need for a specialised conservation society covering the period after 1914. Marcus Binney (Cambridge), John Harris director of RIBA Drawings Collection and Simon Jenkins (St John’s, Oxford). Bevis Hillier (Magdalene, Oxford) became chairman. Clive Aslet (Peterhouse, Cambridge) of

264

APPENDICES

Country Life first honorary secretary Alan Powers (Cambridge) first caseworker. Gavin Stamp (Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge) chair in 1987. Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings founded by William Morris in 1877, in response to the work of Victorian architects whose enthusiasm for harmful restoration caused irreparable damage.

Index

A Advisory Board for Redundant Churches (ABRC), 56, 101, 149, 204, 207 covenants, 101, 108, 149, 150, 231 African Caribbean, 174 Aisthorpe, Lincs, 95, 114 Allexton, Leics, 134 Alternative use, 3, 14, 20, 99, 101, 104–106, 108, 111, 147, 148, 153, 182, 185, 206, 208, 210, 213, 216, 217, 225, 226, 231, 245, 247 Amber Hill, Lincs, 140, 173 Ancient Monuments Act 1913, 45 Ancient Monuments Society (AMS), 48, 65, 108, 109, 203, 205, 209, 212, 227 Anderson, Sir Colin, 205 Anglican, 2–4, 8, 9, 11–14, 18, 19, 43, 59, 65, 67, 88, 96, 108, 122, 123, 125, 127, 136, 144, 152, 153, 161–166, 173–175,

177–179, 181, 182, 189–191, 193, 200, 239–241, 243–245, 247 Anglo-Catholic, 125, 166 Antiquaries, Society of, 70, 204, 234 Archbishop of Canterbury, 18, 45, 46, 52, 59, 63, 173, 205, 207, 216 Archbishop of York, 1, 206 Archbishops’ Commission, 45, 48, 53, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 68, 137, 145, 180, 216 Archdeacon, 48, 65, 81, 144 Architectural value, 216, 245 Asgarby, Lincs, 97 Asian, 22, 136, 137, 175, 181, 182 Asterby, Lincs, 143 Aubourn, Lincs, 85, 143 Authorpe, Lincs, 84, 150, 171 Aylestone Park, Leics, 222

B Bag Enderby, Lincs, 79, 80

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Bonnette, Redundancy, Community and Heritage in the Modern Church of England, 1945–2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17597-8

265

266

INDEX

Baptist, 164, 177 Barker, Ashley, 61 Barnetby-le-Wold, Lincs, 97 Barton on Humber, Lincs, 218 Bath, diocese of, 147 Beeby, Leics, 134, 218 Belgrave, Leics, 92, 108, 130, 134–137, 141, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 182, 190 Believing and belonging, 4, 7, 16, 20, 162 Beloe, Robert, 205 Betjeman, Sir John, 15, 48, 53, 169, 205, 222 Binney, Marcus, 60, 69, 232 Birmingham, diocese of, 109, 218 Bond, Lawrence, 94 Boston, Lincs, 24 Bradford, diocese of, 33 Brandon-Jones, J., 210 Brauncewell, Lincs, 156, 218 Brentingby, Lincs, 134, 218 Bridges Commission, the, 17, 54, 145, 204 Bridges Report, 55 Broxholme, Lincs, 140 Bulmer-Thomas, Sir Ivor, 51–55, 57, 70, 94, 147, 205, 207–209, 216, 231, 233, 234 Bureaucracy, 8, 19, 68, 69, 90, 109 Burman, Dr Peter, 60, 69, 217, 232 Burringham, Lincs, 97 Burwell, Lincs, 97 C Caenby, Lincs, 104, 203, 229 Campbell-Basingstoke working party, 59, 210 Central Committee for the Protection of English Churches, 46, 50 Central Council for the Care of Churches (CCCC), 46, 50

Chadwick, Owen, 11 Chapel, 6, 28, 162, 163, 177 Chapel Hill, Lincs, 169 Chapple, Nick, 50, 51, 59 Chelmsford, diocese of, 33 Chichester, diocese of, 4, 33, 61 Christchurch, Hampshire, 45 Christmas, 166, 171, 173, 239 Church attendance, 1, 5, 6, 12, 77, 122, 125, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 154, 162, 166–168, 170, 173, 189, 200, 241, 242, 244, 246 congregation, 12, 29, 31, 81, 84, 86, 122, 125, 126, 131, 132, 134–136, 141–144, 152–154, 162, 166, 168, 170, 172, 177, 186, 223, 232, 242, 244 decline, 5, 6, 8, 11, 21, 43, 69, 89, 111, 125, 134, 152, 154, 166, 189, 200, 240 demolition, 49, 53, 56, 60–62, 64, 124, 134, 141, 150, 182, 207, 223, 227 electoral roll, 18, 87, 127, 130, 165, 166, 189 evensong, 168 growth, 9, 12, 68, 89, 153, 165, 242 holy communion, 166–169, 241 schools, 133, 134 silver, 91, 92, 111, 165 stipend, 83, 86, 93 vacancies, 82, 92, 96 Churches Conservation Trust (CCT), 13, 66, 229 Churchmanship, 129, 131, 166, 171, 188, 242 Church of England bureaucracy, 8, 19, 68, 69 church assembly, 49, 51–54, 59 church commissioners, 4

INDEX

closed churches division, 18, 103, 104 communicants, 161, 166, 189 confirmation, 5, 167 consecration, 48 cure of souls. the, 49, 52, 78, 83, 140, 153, 179, 200, 243 Faculty Jurisdiction Commission, 61 General Synod, 59, 60, 66, 85, 87, 179, 180, 210, 232 Generosity and Sacrifice, 93 Group ministries, 67 incumbent, 18, 47, 48, 50, 78, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 96, 104, 145, 166, 167, 189, 243, 246 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 142, 211 Partners in Ministry, 83 Pastoral Measure, 2011, 240 pluralities, 82 privy council, 62, 140, 141, 211 rectories, 90 service register, 18, 166, 167 Sheffield Formula, 86 team ministries, 54, 56, 83, 89, 93 Tiller Report, 90 Church of England legislation Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, 1991, 62, 65 ecclesiastical exemption, 61, 67 Endowments and Glebes Measure 1976, 86 Faculty, 44, 45, 61 Faculty Jurisdiction Measure (FJM), 48 New Parishes Measure, 1943, 48 Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure, 1921, 47 Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, 1982, 62

267

Pastoral (Amendment) Measure, 1994, 65, 66 Pastoral Measure, 1968, 17, 54 Pastoral Measure, 1983, 62 Pastoral Reorganisation Measure, 1949, 49, 79 Pastoral scheme, 99, 100 Redundancy scheme, 89, 99, 246 Reorganisation Areas Measure, 1944, 48, 53 Restrictive covenants, 105 Sharing of Church Buildings Act, 1969, 59 Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, 1970, 59 Synodical Government Measure, 1969, 59 Union of Benefice (Disused Churches) Measure, 1952, 50 Union of Benefices Measure, 1923, 47 Church Times, the, 91, 92, 200, 208, 209, 232 Churchwardens, 19, 47, 65, 94, 96, 165, 166, 231 Churchyards, 20, 58, 162, 183, 184, 188, 190, 244 Clarke, Reverend, Basil.L., 15, 205, 217 Claxby, Lincs, 228 Clergy decline, 8, 19, 77–79, 83, 110, 240 numbers, 69, 83, 221 pay, 8, 54, 86 pensions, 87, 189 Coates, Lincs, 138 Cold Hanworth, Lincs, 19, 217 Community, 2–4, 10–13, 22, 32, 63, 64, 83, 85–87, 90, 101, 108, 122, 123, 127, 136, 139, 140, 144, 145, 150, 153, 154, 162, 163, 168, 170, 175, 177–179,

268

INDEX

181, 183, 185, 188–190, 232, 239, 240, 243–246 Competition, 8, 162 Condition, 29, 31, 32, 65, 77, 78, 91, 94, 96, 104, 105, 110, 209, 213, 221 Conservation, 14, 15, 17, 44, 45, 49, 53, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 92, 95, 106, 204, 216, 232, 245 Cormack, Patrick, 62, 215, 234 Council for Places of Worship, 59, 99 Council for the Care of Churches (CCC), 95, 205, 217, 232 Country Life, 137, 227 Covenham, Lincs, 211, 212, 218 COVID-19, 1, 2, 246, 247 Cultural heritage, 17 Cumberworth, Lincs, 163, 168, 186 D Davidson, Randall, Archbishop of Canterbury, 45 Dean, George, 139 Dean of Gloucester, 52 Death, 5, 7, 183, 225 Demolition, 48–50, 53, 56, 60–64, 68, 70, 100, 104, 108, 109, 124, 125, 130, 134, 139–141, 148, 150, 151, 153, 154, 175, 181, 182, 206, 207, 209, 215, 222–224, 226, 227, 244, 245 Department of the Environment (DoE), 59, 226 Dibdin, Lewis, 44–46, 48 Diocesan diocesan advisory committee (DAC), 46 diocesan Board of Finance, 50, 56, 63, 85, 86, 146, 147 diocesan chancellor, 44, 91, 111 diocesan pastoral committee, 49, 50, 58, 141

diocesan red book, 85 diocesan secretary, 89, 182 Diversity, 31, 173, 174, 179, 180 Doak, Mr., 227 Driby, Lincs, 79–81, 140, 162

E Easter, 78, 85, 166, 171, 189, 241 East Heckington, Lincs, 150 East Lindsey, Lincs, 22, 90, 104, 106, 131, 132, 134, 149, 153, 162, 169, 185, 226 East Midlands, 4, 131, 134, 239, 242 Eates, Margot, 199, 226 Edmondthorpe, Lincs, 91, 134 Eighteenth century, 14, 29 Ely, diocese of, 218 English Heritage (EH), 16, 18, 19, 63, 67, 109, 226, 227, 232 Esher, Lord, 52

F Faith in the City, 63, 90, 173, 180 Faith in the Countryside, 64, 68, 90 Fifteenth century, 29, 218, 226 Finance, 3, 32, 50, 56, 63, 79, 82, 91, 96, 146, 147, 156, 204, 218 Findlay, Donald, 52, 54, 59, 217 Fisher, Godfrey, Archbishop of Canterbury, 52 Fletcher, Lord, 205 Fluck, Reverend, 162 Fowler, James, 169, 235 Friends of Friendless Churches (FFC), 53, 147, 203, 207–210, 224, 226, 228, 229

G Garthorpe, Leics, 134

INDEX

Georgian Group, the, 48, 49, 65, 203, 227 Gilbert Scott, George, 137, 181 Gill, Robin, 5, 8, 83, 166, 167, 171, 188, 240 Goltho, Lincs, 97 Goulceby, Lincs, 143 Great Carlton, Lincs, 225, 226 Great Grimsby, St Luke, 32 Great Steeping, Lincs, 28, 84, 199 Greek Orthodox, 127, 166 Grimsby All Saints, 170, 171 St Paul, 170 Guardian, the, 1, 2, 121, 175, 180, 223 H Haceby, Lincs, 173, 206 Haddington, Lincs, 143 Hagnaby, Lincs, 138 Haltham, Lincs, 84 Harland, Maurice, bishop of Lincoln, 24, 79–81 Harvey Lane, Leic, 164 Haugham, Lincs, 95 Haugh, Lincs, 138 Hawerby, Lincs, 229 Hereford, diocese of, 54 Heritage, 2–4, 13–20, 43, 44, 50, 53, 56, 61–64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 91, 94, 95, 108, 114, 147, 149, 175, 186, 200–205, 208, 209, 211, 212, 216, 218, 221, 225, 226, 230–233, 243–246 Heritage bodies, 56, 60, 67, 68, 95, 108, 147, 149, 201, 203–205, 208, 209, 211, 212, 216, 226, 230–232, 245 Heritage legislation, 15 Heritage Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, 51

269

National Heritage Act, 1983, 63 Heritage Lottery Fund, 67 Hewitt, John, 205, 234 Highfields, Leic, 22, 174, 175, 177, 181 Hindu, 22, 108, 175, 179, 182 Historic Buildings Council, the, 51, 60, 63, 205 Historic Churches Preservation Trust (HCPT), 51, 203, 222, 234 Holland, Lincs, 22, 133 Horncastle, Lincs, 207, 218 Hoten, Leics, 121, 122, 134, 145 House of Commons, 46, 62, 69 House of Lords, 46, 55, 62, 69, 94, 146, 184 Housing demolition, 124 Humberside, Lincs, 22, 88 Hussey, Christopher, 48

I Identity, 3, 7, 11–13, 16, 20, 22, 94, 122, 123, 153, 163, 177, 183, 189, 200, 212, 243 Ilford Commission, 51 Immigration, 161, 245 Inspection of Churches Measure, 1955, 52, 114 Internal secularisation, 8 Into Tomorrow, 84, 137

J Jones, Canon Ossie, 239

K Kesteven, Lincs, 22, 133 Kingerby, Lincs, 203 Knighton, Leic, 173, 177

270

INDEX

L Landscape, 3, 13, 14, 16, 20, 22, 43, 69, 77, 96, 108, 122, 144, 227, 230, 234 Lees-Milne, James, 48 Leicester, 4, 18–22, 24, 29, 31, 33, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 89, 90, 92–96, 100, 102, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 123–127, 130, 134, 137, 138, 141, 148, 152, 154–156, 162, 164–168, 170, 172–175, 180–182, 188–192, 218, 222–224, 233, 240–242, 245, 247 Leicester churches All Saints, 95, 125, 130, 218 All Souls, 130, 166, 172, 222 Christchurch, 125 Holy Trinity, 129, 171, 218 St Aiden, 130 St Alban, 135, 136, 177 St Andrew, 79, 130, 134 St Christopher, 130 St Gabriel, 135 St George, 31, 124, 125, 127, 130, 141, 154, 222, 242 St Hugh, 130 St John, 31, 125, 141, 181, 182, 222 St Leonard, 33, 121, 130, 134, 141, 154, 167, 222 St Luke, 125, 180 St Margaret, 104, 124, 125, 141, 142, 171 St Mark, 89, 108, 109, 130, 135, 136, 141, 167 St Martin, 130 St Matthew, 31, 124, 125, 127, 130, 134, 135, 141, 154, 172, 177, 181, 222 St Nicholas, 124, 129 St Peter, 92, 93, 130, 177, 180

Leicester City Council (LCC), 174, 179, 181 Leicester Civic Society, 109 Leicester, diocese of, 24 Synod, 86, 180 Leicester Mercury, the, 109, 175, 181 Leicester Royal Infirmary, 164 Leicestershire, 18, 20, 115, 121, 131, 134, 144, 155, 168, 184, 189, 222, 241 Leicester Victorian Society, 109 Lincoln churches St Andrew, 79, 125, 130, 134, 140, 222 St Benedict, 130 St John the Baptist, 32, 134, 141, 220 St Mark, 130, 170, 172 St Martin, 130, 138–140 St Mary-le-Wigford, 170 St Paul in the Bail, 130, 131 St Peter in the Arches, 59, 130, 135, 143 Lincoln, diocese of, 4, 24, 25, 31–33, 54, 79, 81, 82, 84–90, 93, 96, 102, 104, 105, 110, 113, 115, 122, 130, 137, 138, 140, 150, 156, 166, 202, 209, 218, 221–225, 228, 236, 242 Redundant Churches Uses Committee (RCUC), 105, 226, 228 Lincolnshire, 11, 18, 22, 24, 28, 32, 59, 79, 81, 84, 86–88, 90, 94, 95, 112–114, 122, 131–134, 138, 143, 145, 146, 151, 153, 162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 173, 184–189, 191, 193, 200, 203, 207, 210–212, 215–218, 221, 225, 226, 229, 241 Lincolnshire Echo, the, 131, 138, 140, 152

INDEX

Lincolnshire Old Churches Trust, 95, 209, 210, 215, 218, 226, 229 Listing, 29, 46 Little Carlton, Lincs, 185, 218, 225 Little Cawthorpe, Lincs, 97 Lloyd Webber, Sir, Andrew, 67 London, diocese of, 4, 29, 54, 142 Lord Beaumont of Whitley, 55 Low Toynton, Lincs, 98 M Maltby le Marsh, Lincs, 133 Manton, Lincs, 188 Market Harborough, Leics, 28, 115 Matarasso, F., 69, 223 Medieval, 22, 24, 45, 50, 92, 124, 131, 138, 143, 170, 200, 217, 224, 229, 231, 233 Methodist, 126, 140, 162–164, 191, 241 Middle class, 131, 134 Millbank, 147, 156 Miningsby, Lincs, 203 Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 49, 206 Modernisation, modernising, 5, 6, 11, 19, 31, 58, 152 Monument, 44, 45, 50, 63, 91, 148, 181, 186, 201, 229, 232 Moorby, Lincs, 150 Morris, William, 5, 9, 216 Mowberry, Winifred, 139 Muckton, Lincs, 145 Museum, 223 Muslim, 22, 177, 179 N National heritage, 14, 54, 55, 68, 69, 150, 203, 204, 245 National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), 67

271

National Lottery Act, 1993, 67 National Trust, the, 68, 207 Networks, 10, 11, 15, 129, 152, 175, 215, 216, 243 Nevill Holt, Leics, 134 Newcastle, diocese of, 33 Nineteenth century, 3, 6, 11, 15, 28, 130, 155, 162, 173, 188, 218, 221 Non-Christian, 7, 8, 10, 20, 21, 31, 134, 136, 162, 173, 177, 179–182, 190, 191, 245 Nonconformist, 8, 53, 162, 164, 188, 191, 241 Normanby-by-Spital, Lincs, 87, 145, 218 Normanton, Leics, 89 North Cockerington, Lincs, 95 North Elkington, Lincs, 184, 187 North Ormsby, Lincs, 169 Norwich, bishop of, 49, 50 Norwich, diocese of, 54, 147, 218 No Secret Plan, 81 O Objections to closure, 4, 140, 141, 143, 153, 243, 244 Office of Works, 45 Old Woodhall, Lincs, 207, 209 O’Neil, Bryan, 50 Open Churches Trust, 67 Oshwal Association, 181, 182 Owmby, Lincs, 87, 218 Oxcombe, Lincs, 80, 81, 95, 229 P Packington, Leics, 89 Panton, Lincs, 104, 229, 236 Parish share, 86–88, 92, 93, 110 size, 29, 123

272

INDEX

Parochial church council (PCC), 18, 47, 50, 78, 127 Paul Report, the, 83 Peterborough, diocese of, 24, 54 Pevsner, Nickolaus, 14, 15, 20, 141, 205, 211, 216, 217, 226, 229 Phipps, Simon, bishop of Lincoln, 24, 215, 223 Pilgrim Trust, the, 49 Piper, John, 205, 206, 215, 233 Place of worship, 20, 27, 166, 179, 223 Places of Worship Commission, 59 Population, 7, 18, 20–25, 31, 32, 79–81, 83, 86, 112, 123–125, 130–134, 138, 143, 152, 153, 155, 156, 165, 166, 169–171, 174, 175, 178, 222, 240, 242 Preservation, 13, 14, 16, 48, 53, 56, 201, 204, 206, 208, 216, 222, 230, 233

Q Quinquennial inspection (QI), 18, 52, 94

R Redbourne, Lincs, 79, 140, 165 Redundant Churches Committee (RCC), 207 Redundant Churches Fund (RCF), 56, 57, 63–66, 87, 100, 102, 108, 111, 134, 144, 200, 204–208, 210, 211, 216–218, 221, 223, 224, 226, 229–231 Redundant churches uses committee (RCUC), 56, 100, 105, 206, 226–228 Religiosity, 7, 20, 162, 167, 183, 186

Riches, Kenneth, bishop of Lincoln, 24, 79, 84, 137, 140, 147, 167, 168, 201, 220–223 Rochester, bishop of, 94 Royal Fine Arts Commission, 205 Rural, 4, 8, 12, 13, 22–24, 29, 31, 52, 53, 64, 70, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 93, 122, 123, 131, 134, 135, 137, 140, 143, 147, 152, 153, 156, 163, 168, 173, 183, 188–190, 218, 221, 226, 241, 242 Rutt, Richard, bishop of Leicester, 24, 168, 181, 222 S Salisbury, diocese of, 4, 29, 54, 147, 218 Salmonby, Lincs, 80, 81, 212, 215 Saltfleetby, Lincs, 229 Saltfleet, Lincs, 97 SAVE Britain’s Heritage, 60, 203 Schools, 133, 242 Scunthorpe, Lincs, 32, 88, 140 Secretary of State, 62, 218, 227 Secularisation, 2–11, 32, 78, 152, 162, 184, 239, 247 Seventeenth century, 162 Sikh, 22, 177, 179–181 Sixteenth-century, 91, 218 Skidbrooke, Lincs, 86, 113 Smith, Reverend, Arthur, 112 Snarford, Lincs, 169 Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), the, 44, 203 Somersby, Lincs, 79, 80 Sotby, Lincs, 169, 186 Southampton St Luke, 180 South Elkington, Lincs, 184 South Kelsey, Lincs, 97 South Ormsby, Lincs, 79–81 South Reston, Lincs, 84

INDEX

South Somercotes, Lincs, 98 Southwark, diocese of, 218 Spilsby Group, Lincs, 84 Stamford, Lincs, 152 Stapleford, Leics, 134, 218 Stapleton, Margaret, 141 State aid, 60, 61, 64, 215 State, the, 3, 7, 19, 50, 56, 66, 77, 184, 204, 231 Stretton-en-le-Field, Leics, 134, 144 Strong, Sir, Roy, 11, 60 Suburbanisation, 6, 242 Summerson, Sir, John, 48 Sutterby, Leics, 151, 229 T Taylor Review, 232 Tetford, Lincs, 80, 212 Thackray, Reverend, G., 163 Thirties Society, the, 60, 71, 203 Times, the, 43, 45, 52–54, 60, 64, 79, 92, 94, 175, 180, 181, 186, 211, 217, 222 Tipping point, 3, 134, 240, 242, 243 Toft-next-Newton, Lincs, 184 Tothill, Lincs, 84, 85, 188 Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, 49 Twentieth century, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 22, 25, 44, 69, 70, 77, 78, 81, 96, 123, 131, 152, 154, 161, 162, 164, 188, 200, 218, 221, 239, 244, 246, 247 Twenty-first century, 1, 14, 20, 43, 67, 77

273

V Vicarious belief, 7 Victorian, 5, 49, 169, 200, 205, 217, 218, 224, 233, 245 Victorian Society, the, 53, 61, 62, 65, 182, 203, 227

W Waddingworth, Lincs, 132 Waithe, Lincs, 168, 169 Waiting period, 56, 63, 66, 100, 146, 147, 207, 213, 215, 231 Wasdell, David, 83 West Barkwith, Lincs, 96 West Lindsey, Lincs, 131, 137 Wilding Report, the, 65 Wilding, Sir, Richard, 54, 65, 66, 102 Wildsworth, Lincs, 132, 155 Willesley, Leics, 134, 144 Williams, Ronald, R., bishop of Leicester, 24, 222 Wilson, Melvyn, 90 Wispington, Lincs, 84, 228 Withcote, Leics, 134, 218 Withern, Lincs, 84, 104, 106, 150, 163 Wolds, The, 22, 82 Wood Enderby, Lincs, 169 Woodhall Spa, Lincs, 208 Working class, 175 Wragby, Lincs, 97 Wyham, Lincs, 140, 150 Wymondham, Leics, 91