Cathedrals - who needs them?

I appear to have lit the blue touch-paper with my passing comments about cathedrals yesterday if the three people I met whilst at 'Open Door' were anything to go by. Two of them left me in no doubt that these wonderful building were little more than a drain on the finances of the Church of England and that, "All those people who work in them and live around the close should be 'paying their way' rather than tasking money away from the church congregations that were in the towns and villages!" The other person told me that they love our cathedral as it's a place where they can go and find peace and great music - both of which help them with their own walk.

So there we have it, in a local poll 67*% of the people don't think we need our cathedrals! But are they right? I don't want to address the money bit at the moment as we are currently engaged in an exercise of 'sustainability' (which the diocese is calling 'plain speaking') and looking at clergy numbers and the like (more about that shortly methinks) and this might be part of the reason for the comments***.

So do we need our cathedrals? The majority of the comments made focussed on money. Money for maintenance of those wonderfully big and glorious buildings. Money for upkeep and keeping the doors opened. Money that some 'charge' (and here Westminster and Chester came in for the most flak) Christians to visit their buildings. Money for 'all those people' who work in the cathedral and the money that is paid out for the housing in the closes (with question asked about rent and 'grace and favour'). Yep, if my engagements yesterday are anything to go by, seems quite a few are uncertain about having one on the grounds of money.

Another issue that cropped us was the fact that whilst the building we have is splendid, it's not in the right place for a cathedral in a diocese which is shaped as it is (mainly because we've given bits off to form other diocesan structures elsewhere).

I have had discussions with some who considered the cathedral to be an outdated, outmoded edifice to days gone by and that they needed to be considered in the same light as other stately homes and heritage centres rather than anything that has a place in the community (but these people have never lived in a cathedral town - and I know that having one makes it a city, but that's just convention not community). A tourist feature not an ecclesiastical reality. A source of income for the place in terms of tourism and a source of self-sustaining for the cathedral itself.

BUT (has to be one)

The same responses to yesterday's closing churches conversation apply here and alongside them we have a multitude of other considerations to add into the pot.

The OLSX (Occupy London Stock Exchange) debacle did much to bring the Church, the CofE in general and St Paul's in particular into the public gaze. There was criticism for the fact that the place appeared more concerned with tourists and income than it did with standing with those who campaigned about institutional greed and the general imbalance of wealth (although of course to get wealth you have to be born rich or work and it seemed most of the protestors perhaps lived in neither of those camps!). Where doors should have been flung open and a welcome given, what many saw was a church that cared more about money that standing up for the rights of some and criticising the excesses of others.

Sadly, not one person could see the fact that the electricity, gas and other suppliers to St Paul's all wanted their payments. "Surely no one would cut off a cathedral or a church?" some asked when faced with this scenario. But of course they would, for we are but customers (and commercial, not domestic, customers too!). The cathedrals need to balance their books and the problem of charging admission rather than inviting donations is a tough one for, as we find with some of the churches in our town, many may come in but the donations are pitiful. All want the buildings to be open and available to them but this same 'all' expect the church to fund itself or be funded by some other body (just not them!). So we can ask for a donation or we can charge and I'm not sure which of the two is the right way pastorally, practically, financially and as criteria and responses on a list of other consideration.

On a value for money (which is mean and mercenary) I think that our cathedrals are worth their weight in jelly beans and centres of worship of the highest standard and as centres of excellence, facilitation and enabling. Here's a few 'for instances':

1. When it comes to the major festivals and holy days there is something special about making the journey to the cathedral and it becomes a sort of mini-pilgrimage and centre of celebration all rolled into one. Just speak to people on a Maundy Thursday and see how special it is to gather in a large, and generally splendid, building to celebrate as the many strands of Church together.

2. The ability to come into a scared space which has stood as the centre of Church in that region and in so doing understand that you stand in the company of generations of those who have worshipped before is something that cannot have a price placed on it.

3. To come into a cathedral and find oneself lost in the music and the excellence of the choirs (visiting and resident - and this is a factor, it is a venue for other choirs, organists, bell-ringers and the like) draws one into God and into a special place that all of us need from time to time. It is a safe haven in the storms of life.

4. They are churches and they have their own regular congregations. It's just that their church is a bit bigger than other peoples. They are the centre of community and engage as such with all the same things that we in our smaller places engage with and in.

5. Cathedrals are a centre for excellence and resource as the roles of those who act as missioners and facilitators clearly demonstrate. In fact I would rather that some of the diocesan sector staff worked out of the cathedral than the administrative offices as this would solidify and confirm the role and place of our cathedrals.

6. They engage with the schools and the 'Open Door' and other schools events are an extremely effective and valuable form of engagement between church and community (and not just the local community).

7. They do need to bring in the money to be self-supporting and this is an issue. I felt aggrieved when visiting Church House, Westminster to realise that popping in to the place next door would cost me (although another person later told me that had I asked there is a broom cupboard set aside for those cheapskates who tried the 'just want to pray' approach to getting in for free). I'm not that sure that the cathedrals do take way money from the parishes but as one of those yesterday argued - they cost money and that, even if it comes from a different pocket, is from the same pair of trousers! Think this highlights a need for involvement at parish and Deanery levels from the cathedral staff and some value for money input and engagement.

So there you have it - a real thinking on my feet fifteen minutes of cornflakes (Crunchy Nut), Tea (Darjeeling) and typing.

I hope it makes sense (and has some validity to).

Let's treasure our treasures and let's pray that they continue to flourish and support the wider Church in all and every respect. Pray for them, their congregations, those who work in (and out of) them and for those visitors too - might be the first chance some have to engage with God as we perceive Him to be!

Pax

* Sample of 3 in a poll conducted by strange Vicar**
** Thankfully none of those whose opinions were gained were from the church I'm in
*** There were also comments about paying for 'all those people in diocesan jobs'

ps. I've left the 'grace and favour' aspect as I know little of this and wouldn't know where to start.

pps. Interesting that those who were critical came from places that felt badly done with regard to parish share.