Church administration

[amateur51]

What, if the church gardens catered for your beloved bullfinches as well, the place could easily turn out to be your true spiritual home, amsey ...

Bullfinch singular thus far, scotty but I see you're catching on remarkably quickly.

[Flosshilde]

a flatmate who came home one day with a fondue set (she - our flatmate - came home with all sorts, so a fondue set was a pleasant surprise).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

- partly caused by people who insist on 'praying for me' as if there is something wrong with me.

I agree with you on this point. In this context, "I'll pray for you" is a put-down, meaning "I'm better than you."

[old khayyam]

This one was looking in rather good nick, dovers and they even had bat boxes up in the roof. I guess the revenue from such lettings as the one I attended bring in more income than the declining congregation, which was the reason it was decommissioned, I was told.There was a programme of music concerts there that summer.

This is largely my point (and unfortunately the topic will now unavoidably spread in many different directions).

I've always been curious (suspicious) about why a church (house of God) which is owned by the Church of England (UK's biggest landowner) requires "income" from its congregation. Especially when you consider many of the buildings have been operating quite happily for up to 1000 years.

One's first thought is usually 'Why dont they appeals for funds from above?', by which i mean, higher in the church's administrative hierarchy?

[Flosshilde]

I would agree, but I don't think that other uses are neccessarily incompatible with the church as a place of worship, & if the church (figuratively) wants to be at the heart of the community, shouldn't the church (literally) also be at the heart of the community, & open to all - for concerts, play groups/nurseries, even libraries? My only caveat would be that in the case of architecturally or historically distinguished buildings the fabric of the building shouldn't be damaged.

[amateur51]

This is largely my point (and unfortunately the topic will now unavoidably spread in many different directions).

I've always been curious (suspicious) about why a church (house of God) which is owned by the Church of England (UK's biggest landowner) requires "income" from its congregation. Especially when you consider many of the buildings have been operating quite happily for up to 1000 years.

One's first thought is usually 'Why dont they appeals for funds from above?', by which i mean, higher in the church's administrative hierarchy?

Over the years I've tried many times to get to the bottom of religious organisations' finances both local and national, and my experience is that the higher up the chain you get, the more obfuscation you meet. Witness the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, allegedly

[old khayyam]

I would agree, but I don't think that other uses are neccessarily incompatible with the church as a place of worship, & if the church (figuratively) wants to be at the heart of the community, shouldn't the church (literally) also be at the heart of the community, & open to all - for concerts, play groups/nurseries, even libraries? My only caveat would be that in the case of architecturally or historically distinguished buildings the fabric of the building shouldn't be damaged.

i was surprised to find out recently that the Union Chapel in Islington is in fact an operational place of worship. I have known it only as a night club/venue for at least 20 years.

I know of another London church which is going that way. They are having rock bands on increasingly regular occasions, and are applying for a license for sale and consumption of intoxicating liquours.

Yet another church, as already mentioned, is putting on a series of classical concerts of a generally sacred nature, advertised as 'in our beautiful unspoilt tudor church', yet the concerts are being staged to fund a brand-new extension (arts centre) which will involve knocking down a whole wall of the existing building!

[Flosshilde]

Yet another church, as already mentioned, is putting on a series of classical concerts of a generally sacred nature, advertised as 'in our beautiful unspoilt tudor church', yet the concerts are being staged to fund a brand-new extension (arts centre) which will involve knocking down a whole wall of the existing building!

I would be surprised if they had, or were given, planning permission for such an alteration. Or are churches, like farms, exempt from the planning laws?

[old khayyam]

I would be surprised if they had, or were given, planning permission for such an alteration. Or are churches, like farms, exempt from the planning laws?

They are at least going to remove a large section of the wall to insert a doorway to the annexe which itself will be built upon a section of the rambling, rustic beauty of the graveyard, and no doubt served externally by a concrete drive. And with reference to your previous comment, i am also concerned about damage the spiritual fabric of the building as millions of secular feet trample their way through the consecrated space without any heed nor care as to its purpose.

Its an irony that twists like a knife. They are advertising recitals in an "unspoilt tudor church", and they dont care that they are filling the church on many occasions with people attracted to just such a place. Once it has been spoiled, it will no longer be attractive. Their are thousands of churches in which it wouldnt be so bad, but they are doing it to the quaintest and most picturesque church in the borough.

At another recital recently, the compere even assured any audience members who may find the mediaeval pews "uncomfortable" that we will soon have better seating.

As for planning permission, remember they dropped the prayers from council meetings recently? It seems we are now united under one god - money. The council will weigh fiscal benfits against spiritual, and who do you think will win?

[amateur51]

As for planning permission, remember they dropped the prayers from council meetings recently? It seems we are now united under one god - money. The council will weigh fiscal benfits against spiritual, and who do you think will win?

Oh I think you'll find that 'Uncle' Eric Pickles sorted that for you, old khayam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102915/Eric-Pickles-signs-order-let-councils-say-prayers-meetings.html

And why should not secular feet use this organisation to which the Treasury offers tax relief for 'the promotion of religion' etc?

[scottycelt]

I agree with you on this point. In this context, "I'll pray for you" is a put-down, meaning "I'm better than you."

You mean a bit like saying that someone who wishes you 'Good Luck' is really saying 'I'm luckier than you' ... ?

Even if true, I can't see much of 'a put-down' in either case.

[David Underdown]

Church of England places of worship do not go through the usual planning process, but the Ecclesiastical exemption exists only because the faculty system is held to be just as rigorous (I think similar systems apply to other denominations as well). A high proportion of places of worship are of course listed, so there are quite big hoops to jump through for even small changes. As to finance, most parishes struggle. Despite the Established nature of the church, there is less governmental support for maintenance etc in England than France for example. The buildings may have been there 100s of years, but that doesn't mean nothing needs doing to them, on the contrary there is always work to do. The age of the buildings tends to mean they are not the most energy efficient of buildings (and listed status tends to mean it's hard to do anything about that). Just keeping the buildings ticking over is expensive enough, trying to modernise facilities is even more of a struggle - and again in listed buildings a much higher standard of materials and workmanship is required.

Parishes have to pay considerable sums up to the diocese (this covers clergy salaries, maintenance of vicarages etc), though most dioceses operate schemes which ensure that poorer parishes can to some extent be supported by richer ones

[old khayyam]

Church of England places of worship do not go through the usual planning process [...]

[...] most dioceses operate schemes which ensure that poorer parishes can to some extent be supported by richer ones

Sounds like you have a good insight, David. Please go on.



(i mean it. i'm not being sarcastic)

[old khayyam]

I have now found out that the tudor church mentioned is in fact a listed building (something like the earliest purpose-built Anglican church in London) and the Church of England are very much against the 'modernisation' proposals. Good to hear!

So how come there is a person or group in there campaigning for its modernisation? This brings us back to the original topic. It is my belief that secular persons are insinuating themselves into churches purely for their own gain. Churches are notoriously strapped for cash and poorly attended, yet have the selling point of being large beautiful buildings. This makes them easy pickings for aspiring entrepeneurs.

Simply approach the vicar saying 'Are you strapped for cash? Is your attendance low? Thought so. Here's how I can help you..'

Then a few years down the line, the rocking vicar finds himself to be the proprietor of a nightclub, art gallery, rehearsal/recording studio, film set for hire, gift shop, and restaurant.

[David Underdown]

Sounds like you have a good insight, David. Please go on.

That's about the limit of my knowledge. Google things like [church faculty] for planning issues (there have been fairly well publicised cases regarding changes to bells and bellframes at Malvern and Cornhill). For the other [parish share] or [parish quota] should find some elucidation