The recent judgment in Re Holy Trinity Horwich Footnote ² in Manchester Consistory Court raises some interesting questions about the interpretation of mission in the application of the Bishopsgate questions. Thanks to the tests posed by the Bishopsgate questions, arising from the cases of Re St Helen Bishopsgate Footnote ³ and Re St Luke the Evangelist Maidstone,Footnote ⁴ the law governing faculty applications requires that the status quo be preserved in cases of church buildings with ‘special architectural and historical interest’ unless outweighed by the ‘necessity’ of ‘the pastoral well-being of the parish or some other compelling reason’.Footnote ⁵

‘Necessity’ has been interpreted through a series of judgmentsFootnote ⁶ as ‘reasonably necessary, as opposed to being merely desirable or convenient, in the context of the Church being a focus for worship and mission in the parish’.Footnote ⁷ The arguments and judgment in the Horwich case revolved around whether the re-ordering of a church balcony was necessary to increase seating capacity in a more modern and potentially comfortable style. It was argued that numbers were increasing and that on occasions such as baptisms and school services use of the balcony was required. On the facts, it was found that the required capacity could be created with the existing layout, pews and some tidying up. Accordingly it was decided that the additional capacity sought by the faculty application to re-order the church's balcony was not sufficiently necessary to outweigh the ‘architectural and historical interest’ in the pews already located there.

The point of interest for this reflection is that, according to the Georgian Society and the Churches Building Council, who opposed the application, the pews in question were ‘rare and important’ survivals, still located in their church setting, illustrating four types of socially graded seating. They included: ‘backless benches … for paupers, backed benches for slightly better off people, wide seats and small arm-rests for the wealthier and a range of pews with narrow seats and no arm rests for those in-between’.

The applicant parish, through its incumbent and PCC, supported by the archdeacon and the majority of the diocesan advisory committee, argued that the historical pews were inimical to mission as being narrow, uncomfortable and insufficient for larger services (for example, those involving the local schools or guests for baptisms). This meant that the interpretation and discussion of ‘mission’ focused primarily on seating capacity and growing numbers, particularly as earlier concerns about health and safety had been dismissed. The focus on numbers and capacity meant that there was no consideration of the impact of socially graded pews on the church's mission.

Yet the existence, let alone preservation, of socially graded pews would seem profoundly to undermine the mission of a faith whose scriptures clearly emphasise the abolition of social and class distinctions in church ordering. Consider, for example, Acts 2:43 and 4:32, which record that everyone in the early Church held all things in common, without distinction of private possession or privileged position. Unequal treatment of poorer or weaker members at Communion is condemned (1 Corinthians 11:17–34), and Galatians states that social distinctions are abolished by clothing in Christ, through baptism (Galatians 3:27–29).

Jesus' parables and ministry make clear that Christian discipleship and mission are not about status; discipleship is egalitarian (Matthew 10:24–25) and we are called to serve one another, not stand on the privilege of status (John 13:1–20). Those seeking the best seats, whether in this life or in glory, are admonished (Luke 14:7–11, Mark 10:35–45), as are those arguing about who is the greatest (Mark 9:33–37, Luke 9:46–48). Children are given protected status (Matthew 18:5, Mark 9:37 and 10:13–16). Riches and status are not the way to privilege with God (Mark 10:17–27, Luke 16:19–31). Socially ordered pews and pews for rent therefore seem to contradict clear teaching in the scriptures that Christians are called, by their mission, to proclaim.

Rented pews began partly as a means to raise money for new churches, under powers given by several Church Buildings Acts and New Parishes Measures between 1818 and 1884.Footnote ⁸ The measures coincided with a period of significant growth in church-building that left our industrial cities in particular with the mixed blessings of their Victorian ecclesial heritage. While the aim of fundraising might have been laudable, it effectively excluded those without money from the Church. In order to maximise rented space, relatively few pews were set aside (and those in inaccessible parts of the church) for those who could not afford to pay. Paradoxically, sub-letting pews enabled some to make a living from other people's worshipping habits.Footnote ⁹

However, as the century progressed, voices began to be raised against the scandals generated by pew rents and their impact on mission, particularly among poorer citizens and growing urban working-class communities. This impact was noted by a House of Lords Select Committee in 1858.Footnote ¹⁰ Rents were condemned in legal circles and the 1856 County Court case of Broadhead v Oakes Footnote ¹¹ refused arrears of rent to someone claiming the freehold of a pew in Sheffield Parish Church. The Oxford Movement had an impact on the argument, building churches without socially or economically distinguished pews.Footnote ¹² In addition, the Archdeacon of Coventry, delivering the 1862 Bampton Lectures, argued that the custom of pew rents ‘stultifies the claim of the church to be the church of the poor and almost invalidates its credentials as an institution of Christ’.Footnote ¹³

Gradually the system of pew rents was abrogated and powers to raise rents were not granted in New Parishes Measures from 1943.Footnote ¹⁴ Arguably, preservation of such pews continues an aberration from Christianity that was already being rejected as undermining the Church's mission and ministry by the Victorian Church. To preserve such an aberration in an age that at least aspires to equality through legislation adds to the contradictions and barriers to mission that go far beyond questions of numbers and capacity.

While civil courts regularly wash their hands of theological questions, ecclesiastical courts cannot avoid them.Footnote ¹⁵ As Alexander McGregor points out, there are plenty of examples of religion and doctrine being considered in connection with faculty applications, for example in relation to baptism, heretics and exhumation.Footnote ¹⁶ Recent case law (further considered in Charles George's article) about the removal of altar rails also considers the theology of sacred space and kneeling to receive Communion.Footnote ¹⁷ The concept of mission is inherently theological. It concerns what we preach as the gospel and therefore raises important questions about the consistency of our church buildings with that gospel.

Will Adam's analysis of the case law applying the Bishopsgate questions suggests that a more pastorally ordered approach has not ‘opened the floodgates for unfettered and inappropriate re-ordering of listed buildings’.Footnote ¹⁸ There is no reason to think that a more theological approach to understandings of mission in faculty applications would do so either. Encouraging petitioners for faculties to recognise the theological and missiological issues at the heart of their re-ordering, rather than limiting arguments about mission to mechanistic number-crunching, may also challenge the cynicism prevalent in some circles about the faculty jurisdiction.