Church buildings exist for the glory and praise of God. If that’s not what they’re used for, they should be deconsecrated and pulled down, and the wider church authority in the area should regroup with regard to advancing the mission of the Church.

Isn’t that what Soviets did with the beautiful churches in Russia? 

I think they did it to intentionally desecrate them - to show that they were just buildings like any oother that could be used as grain storage, or roller rinks or gyms.

God does not need buildings to conduct their work. But it is unfortunate the spiritual poverty of Mr. Burnham.

As mary martha alludes to, this reminds me too much of the whole sad business of Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, which Stalin had dynamited in 1931 for a “Palace of Soviets.”  Unfortunately his demolition crew was better than the geotechnical engineers he had on the project, because the palace was never built.  They put a swimming pool there, and the Cathedral was rebuilt after the collapse of communism.

Fear not, for Burnham’s words go down to dust inane.

Isn’t there a certain amount of shooting the messenger here? The Soviets closed churches where people gathered and worshiped. I don’t see Mr. Burnham as any friend to Christianity, but I don’t sense he is trying to close thriving churches. As near as I can tell, this is talking about churches that are failing to engage the people in their community. That is the real tragedy, not the future use of an empty building.

Marymartha, there is a difference.  In Russia, once the Communists fell, the churches were full again, and are being rebuilt and restored.  The Anglican buildings are empty, and will likely not be full again.  But then, so is the theology.  Redundant churches are not even used by other Christians, they get sold to be used as nightclubs.

But there is a kind of “dumbing down” involved is his suggestions. If practicality is the issue, should we not use churches for condos or housing for the low incomes? Perhaps we should sell some to Harrod’s so that the church’s panache can be used to sell clothes and such. And why should not a chalice be used to hold wine at a high priced restaurant? Sacred things need a different treatment than the dungarees of the everyday world. Imagine using an excess of American flags as dish towels. Larry

Well lets be honest, a great number of those churches probably could serve the community better by turning them into gyms.  Like #7 already said, much of their theology is empty, devoid of any power to save souls and resurrect communities. Why not turn them into something that might actually give communities a little shot in the arm—either that or turn the buildings over to FIFUK and let them resurrect them.

The fact that the UK even has a “Culture Secretary” is all you need to know about what’s gone off the rails on the Sceptered Isle.

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but here there is quite a demand in our cities at least for churches as churches. There are so many pentecostal type groups that are tired of (or outgrown) the local school hall that any church building that goes on the market is quickly snapped up. It may not be mainstream, but it is still being used to the glory of God.

He did not say all churches should be turned into gyms.

to be honest, i think it makes economic sense.  When churches aren’t effectively serving the communities, who should pay for their upkeep?  Why should churches be immune from the forces of the market?

If people want to keep the churches as churches, they should pay for them. 

Talk is cheap.

Churches should be gyms - spiritual gyms, and they should have restaurants - Christian restaurants, and they should be community centres - Christian community centres, and bookshops, and activity centres and all the other things that a community centred on Christ is about.

The acoustics would be perfect for preforming arts centres (used UK spelling, there), and indeed, many groups such as Anúna, Mediaeval Baebes, and others, schedule their tours to include churches and cathedrals already.