Mosedale Meeting House (and coffee shop).
Built to scale? Nick Tyldesley on the future of Meeting houses
‘Is a lovely historical building an expensive indulgence?’
As a historian, I believe that if you ask the right questions, you will get the right answers. I want to apply this maxim to the future of Meeting houses.
The debate about this has been going on for a long time, without a coherent, agreed strategy emerging. The issues are, of course, complex and nuanced. We must chart a path between lots of different opposites, with a balanced, middle view not always being the most appropriate. For one, we need to discern whether these buildings are spiritual places or income-generating locations.
But starting by looking at balance sheets and closing down Meetings with a large financial deficit is probably the wrong approach. We need to go back to some fundamental questions. Are Meetings just about Sunday morning worship, with a building left virtually unused for the rest of the week? If income is generated by room lettings then does this simply pay for running costs or does it bring in a surplus? Do Friends have the energy to be involved in repairs, marketing and basic administration? Would subcontracting these tasks be cost effective? If our Meeting closed down would it really be missed by the outside community? Be honest! Is a lovely historical building an expensive indulgence?
‘We need to go back to some fundamental questions.’
From my experience of school/church closures, it takes time for a new community to come together. Those who have lost a cherished institution will feel incredibly hurt. Quakers are not immune from the exercise of power politics. Care needs to be taken about the practicalities of travel to a new Meeting, which might be some distance from its satellites. The Anglican experience of amalgamating parishes has been of a significant drop in congregation numbers and subsequent revenues.
Zoom worship is one quick solution. Or, just as in the early church, a network of house groups could be developed. Renting a room is cheap. We might want to alter the catchment areas for Area Meetings. There must be a way of taking the emotion out of the decision – there are analytical tools for making such choices. There ought to be a Plan B, too. What about having a bus or barge as a mobile Meeting house? Perhaps we should return to the world of early Friends, who trudged or rode cheerfully to a barn or stable.
Friends might be inspired by the Methodists in Bolton who sold their old churches and built state-of-the-art premises with a cafe space, and facilities for letting rooms. Ten years on, ‘The Triangle’ is a flourishing forward-looking church that connects well with its community. And yet, isn’t there something special about a historical Meeting house, despite the hard benches and lack of heating? Just asking.
Comments
William Penn worshiped at the Blue Idol while he was drawing up his ‘Frame of government’ for Pennsylvania, a document which influenced the US Constitution. Our Meeting House was a converted barn then, and it is still more or less unchanged. In 2013 we had to close it for repairs, and when we returned two years later the Meeting was stronger for our stay in local church halls. It is still lively, and very well-attended for a Quaker Meeting in a small Sussex village.
But our AM is short of Trustees, and without them might soon be unable to insure buildings or conclude legal agreements. Why do Friends insist that AM Trustees must be Members? Why does the SoF continue to insist that Attenders cannot perform this duty for Friends? Some of those who oversaw the repair of our QMH and raised the considerable funds for this are Attenders who are thus barred from Trusteeship. This requirement that Friends impose on ourselves centrally is just foolish! Whom the gods would destroy .....!
By Roger W on 22nd August 2024 - 11:49
Please login to add a comment
