One of the most elegant punishments God visits on his rebellious people is to allow them to have what they want. The Anglican Church of Canada loves nothing better than to fulminate against the evil of fossil fuels, in particular the Athabasca oil sands. The collapse of oil prices has made oil extraction from the sands less attractive, leading to the loss of around a 1000 jobs.
From here:
While the dramatic downturn in oil prices that has occurred over the past six months has had a wide-ranging impact on economic prospects across Canada, those who have been hit hardest are people who were already on the margins, according to the Rev. Dale Neufeld, priest-in-charge of the parish of Fort McMurray, Alta.
[……]
Some of these layoffs have been quite dramatic. Last week the Financial Post reported that 1,000 construction workers had been laid off from Husky Energy’s Sunrise oil sands project near Fort McMurray. Suncor Energy said earlier this year that they, too, would be laying off around 1,000 workers, and Royal Dutch Shell is cutting around 300.
[……]
The church’s response has largely been pastoral.
Since the church has worked so tirelessly to undermine the oil sands, the only pastoral response that has any integrity would be for it to financially support those laid off. Assuming, of course, that the Anglican Church of Canada has any remaining vestige of integrity.
By “remaining vestige of integrity” I assume you mean spare properties to sell off.
There are plenty here in the Diocese of Huron for sale or demolition. The church on every corner philosophy was a bad one ‘back in the day’ and we are seeing the results of that today.
I must disagree. I think the “church-on-every-corner” philosophy was a very good one for the betterment of communities generally when we were more of a Christian nation and when people by and large went to, and/or were affiliated with a, church. IMO the very evident and active Christian presence in our communities was most certainly beneficial and the moderating influence of that presence was positive. Those churches were usually built because there was a demand, a market if you will, for them. That is, they were built because there was or would be a sustaining congregation and a community that would be attracted to them. The problems began in part when some denominations went sideways, or elsewhere, in what they did, said, taught, followed and worshipped. That, together with other social influences, made the church-on-every-corner concept redundant. If the churches were attended now as they were back then, it would not be seen to be a bad idea. In many cases it is not the church locations that are the problem. It is what happened to empty those churches that can be considered the problem. Just because more centralized, “mega” type churches, and some small house churches, are doing better now, often at the expense of the local, smaller churches, does not mean that the mega church would then have been the appropriate community model generally. In centuries past, as well, there was a place for both soaring cathedrals and hamlet churches, and those in-between. In fact, some churches on corners are doing quite well even now.
And my both my Oxford and my Webster’s dictionaries tell me “worshipped” is supposed to have two letters “p” darn it!. Stupid, illiterate spellchecker…
No doubt, if everybody were to go to church today, there would not be enough buildings to house them.
Perhaps I should revisit the view you hold. You offer a compelling reason for their existence.
Jim, my observations are more about churches in the past. With respect to churches in the present, it seems to me that if a church building isn’t fairly centralized and of good size, then the congregation does often have financial difficulties. The mega churches that are growing are doing so in many cases at the expense of the smaller ones. That may just be a trend that will continue for the foreseeable future.