A Church and its Buildings

Context: A village, with one PCC and two listed church buildings, half a Vicar and not enough money

How come?

Over 150 years ago, the parishes of Brightwell and Sotwell were merged into one ecclesiastical parish, leading the way for a civil merger in the 1950s.  The parish had its own Rector until the turn of this century and then was absorbed into the Wallingford Team, of which I am the latest Team Vicar, serving not only Brightwell-cum-Sotwell but Crowmarsh Gifford too.  The parish has managed to continue paying its parish share (ministry costs) throughout the pandemic whilst also carrying out some major building works to replace stolen lead (with terne-coated steel) and a new French drain system to cure the damp problem in one of the buildings (St Agatha’s); this has used up a significant proportion of our financial reserves (which were mainly from legacies).  The other building (St James’) is in desperate need of a new roof as the battens holding the tiles are very old – a huge job involving lots of scaffolding.  Approximately £500,000 of further work is needed to maintain both buildings which are both 2* listed and surrounded by open churchyards.

Where to Worship?

The smaller church (St James’) currently hosts a fortnightly 8am said communion, with a small and predominately older congregation who like the early service and/or the atmosphere of this smaller building.  This service would unlikely justify external clergy coming in during an interregnum or if clergy cover is further diluted, i.e. one vicar shared between three parishes (including Wallingford).  This service could be held at the larger church, perhaps with alternating service times.

The larger church (St Agatha’s) has the benefit of more car parking (although often not enough); a splendid organ and bells; a parish room used to host coffee mornings and meetings; and last but not least, toilets.  Currently, a weekly service is held at 9.30am to allow the Vicar to go onto an 11am service in Crowmarsh Gifford.

Villagers have a definite attachment to both sites, sometimes with a preference due to proximity or the churchyards where loved ones may are buried.  It is unthinkable that either building should not be preserved as a place of worship, available for funerals and weddings.

Are both buildings sustainable?

It depends!  The PCC is a voluntary body of church members who have responsibility for the mission of the church in the village including the upkeep of the buildings.  Occasionally, a significant legacy of £50k or more may be received from a church member or sympathetic villager.  Obviously, we cannot budget for these.  We are aware that non-worshipping villagers may wish to make a contribution, often towards a particular appeal such as the Tower Fund which enabled the bells to be rehung in 2016.  A “Friends of” scheme is being proposed and hopefully we could encourage, say,  100 villagers to give £5/month to raise £6,000 a year with the hope that more could be raised.  Ultimately, we would still require major fund-raising initiatives, donations or legacies to change the situation.

The Future?

If we carry on as we are, the PCC will continue to struggle with the upkeep of both buildings, leading to further deterioration, occasional leaks and temporary repairs.  The Vicar could see out his time until retirement, saving himself a lot of stress and leaving the problem to any successors, the churchwardens and PCC!

St James’ could be rebadged as a “Festival Church” – i.e. a church open at and for Festivals only, Christmas, Easter, Pentecost - although it is not clear how this would help with funding the ongoing maintenance.

Another option would be for the PCC to relinquish control of this building, such that the Church Commissioners take back ownership and delegate maintenance responsibilities to another body such as the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT), as is already the case for the nearby church in Newnham Murren.  For this to happen, the building would need to be declared as “redundant”, which is a very emotive word.  The PCC would not be able to determine the future use of a redundant building.  However, as a listed building, it would not be demolished and the sensitivities of the open churchyard with ongoing burials make it extremely unlikely that it would be converted to any kind of domestic dwelling.  However, the CCT might decide that it could be used for “champing” (like AirBnB in a church building) to help with funding the ongoing maintenance.

This has stated the challenge.  Any comments or suggestions would be welcome, not least from others who have faced such dilemmas, or parishioners of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell (and not just those who come to St Agatha’s or St James’).