...i wonder if there are courses in desacralization?

 

might be a market in that...

Interesting question CH.  I'm also interested to hear responses.  A number of years ago, our church severed our original chapel from the larger, newer sanctuary building and it was sold to another congregation.  I think items of particular significance were removed (sadly not the stained glass windows, although some churches also do this).  A service was held to honour the place of the chapel in the lives of many of our church members, and to help all through the process of grieving its loss.  Saying goodbye - even to a building - is important. 

 

I took a little scan through the new manual (good job BTW - easy to read & understand!!) and it deals mainly with processes of decision making etc.  Didn't see any mention specifically of deconsecration rituals or services.  But then again, I don't think I specifically saw mention on consecration in the manual either!  I suppose that may be our 'congregationalist' side of life - each deciding aspects of meaningfulness for ourselves. 

 

In Toronto area, there are many places of worship now repurposed - condos, community centres etc.  Often, elements of the original architecture are retained, which I like. 

 

 

Hi crazyheart,

 

 

If a consecration is an act by which something is dedicated to the service or worship of God then a deconsecration would be an act by which something has that dedication removed.

 

How one does that is fairly simple though I suspect there are elaborate liturgies designed to make folk feel good about what is going on.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

As the United Church does not "consecrate" a building, we don't "deconsecrate", either. Our theology is that we make holy by use. Lack or change of use simply means that we have moved on. There is a service of leaving a building (a saying good bye) in the worship resource "Celebrate God's People", however. I did design a service of worship for the closure of a presbytery when our conference restructured. I deliberately used the words of comittal, "earth to eart, ashes to ashes, dust to dust" and had the presider make the sign of the cross with sand.

As chair of prebytery I used the ritual in celebrate to "deconsecrate" a church.  Given my prefered high church stance I used the words and the sign of the cross.  There are ways to say good bye and should be used by the action of presbytery.

I think there is a difference between saying good bye to a building and deconsecrating a building.

 

A church is not holy,imo,the ministry that happens is the holy part.

 

wHY would be deconsecrate if we don't consecrate in the first place?

It is simple to say "we don't consecrate". What is hard is looking at how it is done. Is it an act of the powers that be, the denomination?Is it done by declaration? Is it done by a special liturgy delivered by clergy? Or, is it something bestowed by the people? IMO We attach special meanings to places. They may not have been declared "special". In Judaism, it is not about a place being declared "holy ground" or that God is kept in the broom closet.   Judaism does not recognize any ritual to consecrate, so their deconsecrate is similiar to our "closing service". The closure, goodbyes, thanksgiving... the smiles and tears. The sacred. It is about the people and not the place. It is about the people's sense of consecrated space. It is about their connection to the divine. It is pastoral.

I find it hard to say goodbye to a car I drove for 6 years. I can imagine the emotional attachment to a church.

 

Which is why we are different from our Anglican and Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who set apart as holy (consecrate) such spaces. We set apart by our use, as opposed to a specific act.

IMO we differ in words only. When we dedicate for special purpose, associate it with the sacred... we have IMO consecrated, whether we call it that or not.

 

correct

I have been to several deconsecration services in my Presbytery.  They are attended by Presbytery members and members of the congregation that is being disbaned (and usually amalgamated with another congregation).  Like a worship service, there is scripture reading, prayers, music.  Someone gives a 'brief' history of the congregation or the building.  The person who has been a member the longest, and the last person to have been baptised are often recognized.  Then various items - communion service, Bible, baptismal font, cross, are mentioned and carried out to go to their new homes.  Other items - the piano, the old wood stove - are given due recognition.  Mention might be made as to the future of the building - along with the surrounding cemetery, it will be sold to the communion for $1.00; or it will go on the market.  Often it is hauled away to become a woodshed or henhouse.  Or somebody will be buying it to convert to a home, or artist studio.  After the service is over, coffee and sweets are served, people stand around an reminis - and the church passes into history.

It has always struck me as odd how some claim they do not consecrate clergy, they just have a special service and…

 

The same with church buildings. They will say they don’t consecrate them and yet they have special services to dedicate them. The same with altars, baptismal fonts, etc.

 

It makes sense, to me, that if we are to return a “special” place to secular purpose, then there might be a service to mark that.  

 

Admittedly, there can be baggage and weight to a word like consecrate. It can draw us in or repel us.  If I look at whether we in the UCC set apart, dedicate, devote… well, we do.

 

 If the United Church does not “deconsecrate” buildings, someone ought to tell the folks at Highgate United and Hythe United, among countless others who have no qualms about the use of that word.

 

We talk about when individual UCCan churches were consecrated. Don't me? I have heard it rather often. Many churches existed pre-1925 and were, by their original occupants, consecrated. The UCC was formed from churches that may have consecrated. Example- Robertson in Edmonton, Alberta came from Presbyterian roots and was consecratedi. It follows, to me, then that should that building ever close or quit being a church or be torn down it would be fitting to deconsecrate.

I disagree. In the Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions that building or property is holy; literally holy. Not in the United Church. We make it holy by our acts, our presence, our worship. When we leave, it is simply a building we have used. The "holiness" goes with us, not the building or property.

A service of disbanding a congregation is not a "deconsecration". It is a service disbanding the congregation. What happens to the property is an entirely different matter. Wwe have a church in this presbytery that has no congregation. Yet it is still used as a church. There is regular worship there and an active graveyard. There are Trustees. But the congregation disbanded half a century ago.

No, we ordain clergy and commission men and women to diaconal ministry.

 

If you read the litury we use, it clearly states we dedicate them by their use...

 

Glad to. It's really sloppy liturgy on the part of those responsible.

 

All of that became irrelevant in 1925, save that which is named in the Basis of Union.

It was referred to as a deconsecration. I have known congregations to disband but the church remains as a church - perhaps used by a community for occasional worship or for funerals or weddings. I don't know how they manage the legal and physical responsibility (repairs, insurance, etc). But the services I've attended were to deconsecrate the churches. They were no longer churches. The congregation might disband, or it might move elsewhere.

Then it's really, really bad theology and use of language. No such language exists in either The Manual or any of our worship resources. Three slaps with a wet paper napkin to those responsible.

Do you mean the Madill Church? I ride by there quite often.

http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_MNO/Plaque_Muskoka19.html

  No,  although that may be another one.

chansen, that is my have neck of the woods, Madill. They have a service each summer and I have led worship a few times.

DKS, you initially say that it is not used and when it is pointed out that it is indeed used, you say it is sloppy and bad theology and against UCC rules. That may very well be your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is simply that- your opinion, your reading of the rules and your theology. There are many others who apparently do not believe it is sloppy theology or outside UCC rules. Deconsecrated, de-established, disbanded, dissolved... all are used and used in the UCC. As I stated there are churches that were consecrated, like Saville in SK, it was originally a RC church. A simple web search will show that the word deconsecrate is used repeatedly by UCC congregations, those I listed and Emmanuel in Annapolis, Kootenay Presbytery of the United Church of Canada held a Service of Deconsecration of Trinity United Church in 1998, Alcove United... and countless others. This Observer article also uses it. http://www.ucobserver.org/living/2011/10/lofty/                                                                    

Thanks SG. 

Nope. And if they were, it is an absolutely wrong use of the word and practice. Doesn't mean it hasn't been used. It doesn't mean it's an appropriate use of the word. There is no mention of deconsecrate or dis-establish in any United Church document, manual or property guidance policy I have ever read; no mention of it in our worship resources. And yes, I've read a lot of documents.  We disband congregations. We close buildings. We do not deconsecrate or dis-establish. If it has been done, it is an incorrect use within the United Church context and should not have been used. BTW, that Roman Catholic Church in Saskatchewan would have been formally deconsecrated by the Roman Catholic Church (who do have such a liturgy) before the United Church ever started using it. And sorry if my confidence and assertiveness on this one offends you. I am on solid ground. The Observer makes mistakes, too, and did, in this article.

The liturgy found in "Celebrating God's Presence" is helpful. It calls a service of closure "A Service for Taking Leave of a Church Building". In that service, the presbytery declares,

"This building, having been dedicated    

and named N. United Church,

together with the land on which it stands

and all objects remaining in it,

we now commend to other purposes.

We declare that it is no longer the place of meeting

of a congregation of The United Church of Canada."  I find that both helpful and instructive (though, as usual in our United Church polity and worship, not completely binding).

I think we had a more moving speech delivered at the closing of an old office building I worked at.

DKS, My apologies but Saville is the name the church took as a theatre. It was the RC church in Lemsford, SK until 1949. It became a UCC when they moved the building to Consul, SK. It was deconsecrated in 2005.

 

This points the truth of SG comments.  I can read it as a liturgy that is a high liturgy of change to other uses, from sacred to non sacred.  It is not bad theology to read it this way and some of us are not ulitarians in theology but actually are "high" church types and find the anglican and RC and orthodox insights helpful to understand the UCC,  I am not a functionalist which I would call a "bad" theology.  Of course functionalism is helpful to understand ourselves, but it does lead to what is functional in a deeper sense, that is what lies behind the function.  Is it symbolic of a deeper mystery and things are not merely material but there is some "spirit' in things.

 

The prior assumption does inform our reading of a iiturgy.