|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: C of E 'special status' in the UK?
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
There's an article in today's Telegraph (here) in which a 'senior Anglican clergyman' is quoted anonymously as saying this Government is using 'bully-boy tactics' to force the equal / same-sex marriage bill through Parliament. He reckons any opposition from C of E Bishops 'could spell the end of [their] special status'.
Then, and this is the bit I want to discuss, the author says:
quote:
Special status? what kind of special status do the bishops – or any of the Churches – enjoy under this Coalition of the Godless?
Um, what about the fact that several C of E bishops have an automatic seat in the House of Lords, giving them access to the levers of power that no other religious grouping in the UK has? That special status?
Mind you, I think the author does hit the nail on the head at the end of her article by wondering 'whether an Established Church that comes at the price of freedom of conscience is worth it.'
Disestablishment now please!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm not too bothered by the bishops in the House of Lords - no more than I am by the House of Lords in general, that is. After all, the poor old duffers need somewhere to go for their afternoon nap, don't they?
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation. And also the "special status" of many of its employees - sorry, post holders - that allows it to treat them like crap.
Disestablishment? Yes plase. As long as the government doesn't take our money off us, like it did with the Welsh.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Disestablishment? Yes, definitely. However, even though I am an atheist and a member of the ~BHA, I am a bit cautious about drastically changing the status quo, since that would leave too much space for a less moderate, middle-of-the-road organisation to step in and gain power. One step at a time - e.g. removing Bishops' seats in the HoL. And make sure the gay marriage bill passes.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation. And also the "special status" of many of its employees - sorry, post holders - that allows it to treat them like crap.
Good point, Adeodatus. What is the basis (legal or philosophical) for these opt-outs?
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Disestablishment? Yes, definitely. However, even though I am an atheist and a member of the BHA, I am a bit cautious about drastically changing the status quo, since that would leave too much space for a less moderate, middle-of-the-road organisation to step in and gain power.
I suppose this is a danger, but if a less moderate organisation gains power because they have popular support then that's just how things go, isn't it? The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I've never really understood why people get het up about disestablishment. While it's true that the bishops in the House of Lords wield some power, it's not a great deal is it? No legislation has - so far as I know - succeeded or failed on the basis of the bishops' votes.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation. And also the "special status" of many of its employees - sorry, post holders - that allows it to treat them like crap.
Good point, Adeodatus. What is the basis (legal or philosophical) for these opt-outs?
I believe it's something along the lines of "we're religious so we're special." Profound stuff, I think you'll agree.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe it's something along the lines of "we're religious so we're special." Profound stuff, I think you'll agree.
It is because removing the opt-outs would be unenforcable.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
I was actually thinking of starting a thread on antidisestablishmentarianism.
I too am getting rather confused by recent outpourings about how the CofE's establishment status is being undermined. What are the essential aspects of establishment? The red lines that, when crossed, disestablishment has happened?
As far as I can see, originally establishment practically meant 2 things:
1) The church didn't maintain its own rules, but relied on Parliament to do that for it
2) Nonconformists were excluded from public life (so parliament was entirely an Anglican club)
They both have a tiny residual existence but are basically not true. For instance, no-one has suggested that the CofE's establishment status is being undermined by being given the same opt-out to gay marriage as everyone else; surely as the established church, we should be forced to either conform to the will of parliament or become non-conformists.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
If the people of the country want to continue to enjoy their special status by enjoying the Church of England, its ministers, ceremonies and buildings, available to everyone in the land regardless of where they live, it seems to me that allowing a few bishops in the House of Lords to have their say is a small price to pay. They serve in the sense that they lead prayer and provide pastoral support in the House too.
It's not as if they are the only religious group represented in the House.
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Britain is a post-Christian secular society now. Disestablishment of the Church of England would probably benefit everyone in the long run.
The main issue as I see it would be the maintenance of redundant heritage churches (which the CofE doesn't need and cannot be maintained by a congregation numbering in single figures). Local Councils can't afford to look after closed church yards and would have trouble finding the £x000's to look after the many and various church buildings.
Special buildings containing treasures, wall paintings or magnificent examples of stained glass etc. shouldn't be turned into night clubs or apartments on cultural grounds alone.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe it's something along the lines of "we're religious so we're special." Profound stuff, I think you'll agree.
It is because removing the opt-outs would be unenforcable.
Really? What's stopping any disestablishment legislation being drafted well so that the church could be sued by employees or victims of discrimination?
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The legislation is a classic case of the CofE special status. The CofE is banned from taking same-sex marriages. All other churches have to make national decisions about whether to or not. Fine for Roman Catholics and Methodists but a nonsense in English historic dissent. It does not work with our ecclesiology. We do not decide such issues nationally usually and are very bad at it when we try.
You get therefore the stupidity of the URC having to pass a vote to let individual congregations decide and the Baptist voting against and then when a prominent minister comes out in favour unable to enforce.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never really understood why people get het up about disestablishment. While it's true that the bishops in the House of Lords wield some power, it's not a great deal is it? No legislation has - so far as I know - succeeded or failed on the basis of the bishops' votes.
There is always a possibility in a close vote that a small group of people making all the difference.
If the Lords split down the middle on this one, and the CofE bishops are the ones to cast the votes against the bill, then they would be lambasted in the press as the ones who voted against the mood of the nation.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin writes:
quote:
The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.
Nor has anyone else in the Lords (unless you argue that the elected hereditaries are there through the voices of the broad masses of their electorate), but bishops' appointments happen through a government-authorized process and those governments were popularly elected. Think of the bishops in the Lords as being a form of Quango, and having the same devolved democratic legitimacy as the others. Perhaps we were better served when PMs would ensure that Whig canons got the pip, or Tory deans took the purple.
I would suggest that there be an argument for more representatives of religions in the Lords, rather than fewer. Sadly, RC canons do not permit their bishops to be summoned.
As far as non-applicability of rights legislation to religious institutions, this is fairly frequent in the common-law world. Nobody imagines that Lubavitcher rabbis will go to the hoosegow for not officiating at same-sex marriages, nor that mosque boards will be doing time for refusing to hire Franciscan friars to fill imams' jobs.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
The overwhelming majority of your Anglican brethren in the United States can't help but shake their heads on these two particular issues.
As for me, it seems that the Church can barely function when it's part of The Establishment, let alone when it's legally established. The 1950s and 1960s were a low point in the United States, and decades of lost members since have finally prepared us to start doing again what the Church should have always been doing. Good riddance to the fifteen hundred years in between.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
South Coast Kevin writes:
quote:
The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.
Nor has anyone else in the Lords
Good reason for getting rid of the lot of them.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not too bothered by the bishops in the House of Lords - no more than I am by the House of Lords in general, that is. After all, the poor old duffers need somewhere to go for their afternoon nap, don't they?
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation.
Exact other way round for me. I see no reason why anyone should get a free pass to rule over anyone else. Lawful government should require the voluntary consent of the governed.
But on the other hand if some church (or mosque or synagogue or temple or any voluntary association of people) wants to cut themselves off from those of their fellow creatures who happen to have the wrong number of balls, let them alone - as long as they can't enforce their prejudice on anyone else.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
South Coast Kevin writes:
quote:
The point about C of E bishops being ex officio House of Lords members is that they haven't got there through any popular support, campaign or vote.
Nor has anyone else in the Lords
Good reason for getting rid of the lot of them.
Indeed, that's a viable position, although the Lords still looks more functional than the Senate of Canada.
If the CoE really wants to fight disestablishment, they need but advocate the French model, where the state owns and maintains the churches built before 1906, and then rents them out to ritual associations.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The legislation is a classic case of the CofE special status. The CofE is banned from taking same-sex marriages. All other churches have to make national decisions about whether to or not. Fine for Roman Catholics and Methodists but a nonsense in English historic dissent. It does not work with our ecclesiology. We do not decide such issues nationally usually and are very bad at it when we try.
You get therefore the stupidity of the URC having to pass a vote to let individual congregations decide and the Baptist voting against and then when a prominent minister comes out in favour unable to enforce.
Just a tiny point of correction here. It is only nationally-accredited (i.e. "proper") Baptist ministers who can't do Same-sex blessings. An individual congregation has the right to decide to host them and a non-accredited or lay pastor could theoretically conduct them!
Which makes the whole thing very silly!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
As for me, it seems that the Church can barely function when it's part of The Establishment, let alone when it's legally established.
Perhaps - or not. I think that most Nonconformists such as myself, who do not support Establishment, do in fact welcome the Bishops' presence up to a point, as they can provide some kind of "Christian" input. Hopefully they can avoid kowtowing to the Establishment line and add some prophetic critique.
On the other hand, why should members of one Christian sect sit in the Lords by default when other Christians - not to mention other religious groups - do not have that right?
Oh yes, one other (different) point: there are some (not all!) Anglicans who seem to regard other Christians almost as intruders on their patch or, at the very least, as somewhat second-class citizens of heaven. I know that an incumbent theoretically has the cure of all the souls in his/her parish, but it can come over as an arrogant or snooty gesture.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.
[ 03. June 2013, 14:22: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.
NI do have Rev Ian Paisley. Maybe not the most unifying representative admitably, but he is a churchman.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Really? What's stopping any disestablishment legislation being drafted well so that the church could be sued by employees or victims of discrimination?
Because besides falling foul of the European Human Rights Convention, it would not be politically acceptable to confiscate money and property to pay compensation and court costs, and send religious leaders to jail for disobeying injunctions. You would be getting into some pretty heavy social unrest, especially with regard to the British Moslem community. Seriously.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.
That does need to be weighed up against Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland having their own provincial-level assemblies while England does not. If they could be trusted to vote in the interests of the English people, having a handful of 'extra' Lords would provide the English with just a little bit of redress for that democratic deficit.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Because besides falling foul of the European Human Rights Convention
What part of this "human rights" convention prevents institutions from being held accountable for their actions in a court of law? Does it apply to all the non-established churches and other religious groups too?
A link to the appropriate section would suffice.
[ 03. June 2013, 14:48: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Codepoet
Best Bear On Board
# 5964
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
...
The main issue as I see it would be the maintenance of redundant heritage churches (which the CofE doesn't need and cannot be maintained by a congregation numbering in single figures). Local Councils can't afford to look after closed church yards and would have trouble finding the £x000's to look after the many and various church buildings.
...
I am pretty certain that the maintaince of church plant is pretty irrelevant to the question of disestablishment. As I understand it there are not funds that the CofE has access to only on account of its established status. It is a common myth that the CofE is somehow government funded, but this is no ore true than it is for any other church of charitable body.
--------------------
It's more important to be kind than to be right.
Posts: 1156 | From: Southampton | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What part of this "human rights" convention prevents institutions from being held accountable for their actions in a court of law? Does it apply to all the non-established churches and other religious groups too?
I don't have the precise section, but I believe there is a religious opt-out, which applies to all religious organizations. But do you not have something similar in Australia?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Disestablishment? Yes please!
IMO, the "special status" of the CofE has throttled the church's mission and silenced its prophetic voice.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
What part of this "human rights" convention prevents institutions from being held accountable for their actions in a court of law? Does it apply to all the non-established churches and other religious groups too?
I don't have the precise section, but I believe there is a religious opt-out, which applies to all religious organizations. But do you not have something similar in Australia?
There is the 'Genuine Occupational Qualification' legislation which allows employers to put forward a case that certain roles must be fulfilled by someone of a certain religious view, gender etc. So a women's refuge could claim that their staff must all be women, and they'd get permission to discriminate on that basis in their recruitment processes.
Some jobs are open only to people of a certain religious view on this basis, but I gather there is also this quirk of the law that means C of E priests get classed as 'post-holders' and not regular employees (as Adeodatus said way upthread).
As several people have noted, there are two separate issues; should religious groups get special treatment (e.g. an opt-out on some equality legislation) and should the Church of England specifically get any special treatment that doesn't apply to other religious groups. I was particularly irked by what the article in my thread starter said about the latter question, but both questions are worth asking, IMO.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Well, if you will read the "Torygraph" ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The question of the "special status" is an important one. There are some aspects that come about from it being a church with historic status, but I believe that the following would all change if it were to be properly disestablished:
1. The employment status of clergy, including their special tax position.
2. The role of bishops in the top levels of our society.
3. The exemption from planning laws in favour of the faculty system.
That doesn't seem like a lot, but it is quite significant. It would change the nature of the church in the society. I am not saying that this would be a bad thing or a good thing, but it would make a substantial difference.
Losing the faculty system would make substantial differences to the chances of making changes in churches. In some cases, it would make then unusable, and they would be abandoned.
Losing the role of bishops in the society would mean that more and more state occasions would have no spiritual input, not visible recognition of the churches place or role in them.
Losing the clergy employment status would mean substantial changes in the way they interact with the community they are in. It might mean they earn more or work less, and it should mean they have their duties defined, but they will also lose their position in the community.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever the functional merits of either the House of Lords or of having an established state church, there is lack of equity. The Westminster Parliament pertains to the whole U.K. whereas the CofE pertains only to England. If one is going to have Lords Spiritual, there need to be some from the other countries making up the UK, however that might be accomplished, seeing that a non-episcopal church is the established church in Scotland and there is no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland. Or so ISTM as a non-citizen of the UK.
That does need to be weighed up against Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland having their own provincial-level assemblies while England does not. If they could be trusted to vote in the interests of the English people, having a handful of 'extra' Lords would provide the English with just a little bit of redress for that democratic deficit.
ISTM the answer in this case is not for the English to have a handful of extra non-elected lords who represent a religious institution a large percentage of English people don't adhere to in the first place. I'd say, as a foreigner, the answer is for England to have a legislative body equivalent to those in Wales, Scotland and NI.
Once again, this discussion reminds me that, as a communicant in a church in the Anglican Communion, I am sooooo glad it is not a state church!
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.
No, it's not a business but that doesn't define status. Priests are called by God but affirmed in that calling by people. If the stipend were a gift, then no tax NI would be payable - since it is, then a stipend can't be classed as such. it is remuneration for service rendered.
A stipend plus other benefits (housing, pension, expenses) is far greater than that required for basic costs of living. It's net value is aroung £27000 - comfortably higher than avergae earnings.
The position of clergy as office holders is being tested in a number of cases across the denominations. Who knows how long it will hold as special pleading?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I've always been against establishment. But it would be pretty shameful if disestablishment was forced upon the church just because it couldn't be trusted to organise its own affairs justly. Shameful for the church, that is.
There could be conceivable scenarios when a government expected the church to jump through hoops of unfaithfulness to the Gospel. But the two current Dead Horses are not those IMHO.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.
No, it's not a business but that doesn't define status. Priests are called by God but affirmed in that calling by people. If the stipend were a gift, then no tax NI would be payable - since it is, then a stipend can't be classed as such. it is remuneration for service rendered.
A stipend plus other benefits (housing, pension, expenses) is far greater than that required for basic costs of living. It's net value is aroung £27000 - comfortably higher than avergae earnings.
The position of clergy as office holders is being tested in a number of cases across the denominations. Who knows how long it will hold as special pleading?
This arises because of a confusion between the roles of 'priest' and 'vicar', 'chaplain', what have you. There are (increasingly) many priests who receive no stipend and exercise their priesthood in many different contexts. Those who are paid to be vicars or whatever are surely employed by the church in the same way that a priest who is a bus driver or social worker is employed. In neither case does it mean that the priest lacks a call from God, nor that the call from God is a guarantee of permanent employment.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've always been against establishment. But it would be pretty shameful if disestablishment was forced upon the church just because it couldn't be trusted to organise its own affairs justly. Shameful for the church, that is.
There could be conceivable scenarios when a government expected the church to jump through hoops of unfaithfulness to the Gospel. But the two current Dead Horses are not those IMHO.
As a firm believer in the "DH" policies the CofE conservatives are opposed to I still think a political entity has no right to force any religious body to conform to any particular religious view. Especially since, although here designated "Dead Horses", the issues are still very much live issues for many.
Again I am soooo glad that my church . . . (etc. etc., as my last post)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Codepoet:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
...
The main issue as I see it would be the maintenance of redundant heritage churches (which the CofE doesn't need and cannot be maintained by a congregation numbering in single figures). Local Councils can't afford to look after closed church yards and would have trouble finding the £x000's to look after the many and various church buildings.
...
I am pretty certain that the maintaince of church plant is pretty irrelevant to the question of disestablishment. As I understand it there are not funds that the CofE has access to only on account of its established status. It is a common myth that the CofE is somehow government funded, but this is no ore true than it is for any other church of charitable body.
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've said this before, and I'm saying it again.
The church pays a price for establishment. There are sound arguments that it might be bad for it. The church though is not the only party to it. Having a formal commitment to Christianity is good for the state. It enshrines the principle that rulers are answerable not to the furtherance of their own grubby careers and facile ideologies, but to God. And that is so whether they personally believe or not.
Furthermore, there is an additional very serious hazard involved in disestablishment. This didn't apply to 1914 or 1869, which were about which form of Christianity should be the official one. Whether or not some churchpersons might prefer it, disestablishment now would constitute national and formal apostasy.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm not too bothered by the bishops in the House of Lords - no more than I am by the House of Lords in general, that is. After all, the poor old duffers need somewhere to go for their afternoon nap, don't they?
What annoys me more and more, as time goes on, is the CofE's exemption from virtually every piece of equality and diversity legislation.
Exact other way round for me. I see no reason why anyone should get a free pass to rule over anyone else. Lawful government should require the voluntary consent of the governed.
Except the House of Lords does not 'rule' over the country. They cannot prevent laws from being passed, write laws themselves, or execute any judgements. They exist mainly as a constitutional court, a safeguard on any parlimentary excess. Such a role in government is usually seperated from the electoral process for good reason, such as with the SCOTUS in US, and the Constitutional Court in South Africa as two examples.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The position of clergy as office holders is being tested in a number of cases across the denominations. Who knows how long it will hold as special pleading?
Most recently in the
Supreme Court for the definitely not established Methodists, where the court held that the Minister concerned was not an employee.
The Court of Appeal recently reached exactly the same conclusion with regards to Catholic priests who hold the office of parish priest.
In respect of a different ecclesial entity the House of Lords came to the opposite conclusion because the facts of the relationship were, in that case, evidence of a different relationship.
It's got nothing to do with Establishment and everything to do with what constitutes an employment. That isn't a default or presumed position: it is entirely fact sensitive. Either a relationship meets the criteria or it doesn't. It seems that the Courts are capable of distinguishing perfectly well between different kinds of relation on the basis of the different circumstances.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).
The Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopal Church of Scotland and Church In Wales all manage to divide countries into parishes without being established.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Except the House of Lords does not 'rule' over the country. They cannot prevent laws from being passed, write laws themselves, or execute any judgements. They exist mainly as a constitutional court, a safeguard on any parlimentary excess.
But their illegitimacy prevents them from standing up to the elected chamber. And so has allowed the House of Commons to progressively remove their powers.
If we need a second chamber of Parliament then it should be elected by the people - though on a different basis from the first chamber (different constituencies, different electoral cycle, different voting system)
A proper constitutional court is another thing entirely. The House of Lords as it is now cannot function as one because its members are mostly officers of political parties appointed by the parliamentary leaders of those parties, and because they still have some role in originating legislation, which a constitutional court ought not to have.
Also peers can introduce private bills and ask ministerial questions on behalf of individuals, businesses, or local authorities. That's a perfectly valid function (though not when they charge money for it) but it conflicts with being a constitutional court.
[ 03. June 2013, 17:54: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Church is not a business. Priests are called to their positions by God. They are not paid employees. The stipend is given as a gift, provided from donations, to meet the basic costs of living.
All the more this should come from the faithful, and not everybody.
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Special buildings containing treasures, wall paintings or magnificent examples of stained glass etc. shouldn't be turned into night clubs or apartments on cultural grounds alone.
If it is of significance to the country, the state should maintain. Simples.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Except the part of maintaining a presence in every community perhaps- (The Parish).
The Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopal Church of Scotland and Church In Wales all manage to divide countries into parishes without being established.
Yes I realise that they do.
Since I don't really know chapter n verse on this I will ask:
What is the legal situation about the presence of the CofE in the community?* Is there anything more to the CofE strap line A Presence in Every Community other than being a corporate style vision statement?*
ETA If the CofE does have some kind of mandatory requirement to be in every settlement/ community then there may be real issues of excess church buildings if it is relieved of such a duty when disestablished.
*Should these tangental questions be in another thread?
[ 03. June 2013, 18:08: Message edited by: The Midge ]
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All the more this should come from the faithful, and not everybody.
Which is what happens.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Except the House of Lords does not 'rule' over the country. They cannot prevent laws from being passed, write laws themselves, or execute any judgements. They exist mainly as a constitutional court, a safeguard on any parlimentary excess.
But their illegitimacy prevents them from standing up to the elected chamber. And so has allowed the House of Commons to progressively remove their powers.
Are you equating "legitimacy" per se with "popularly elected", and thus saying that the House of Lords, not being popularly elected, is illegitimate per se?
[ 03. June 2013, 18:20: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
The question I'm still waiting for Anglicans to answer is where in the New Testament does it say that they or any other church should be established or otherwise specially privileged in the state to begin with? There's lots in said NT which seems to propose a very different way for God's people to relate to the world they live in and the various governments they have to live under, and quite a lot of that teaching seems to positively reject the idea of establishment. Quoting supposed advantages of establishment doesn't mean much - if the NT rejects establishment then the list of 'advantages' would basically be a list of how the Anglicans and similar were tempted to disobey the NT!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The question I'm still waiting for Anglicans to answer is where in the New Testament does it say that they or any other church should be established or otherwise specially privileged in the state to begin with? There's lots in said NT which seems to propose a very different way for God's people to relate to the world they live in and the various governments they have to live under, and quite a lot of that teaching seems to positively reject the idea of establishment. Quoting supposed advantages of establishment doesn't mean much - if the NT rejects establishment then the list of 'advantages' would basically be a list of how the Anglicans and similar were tempted to disobey the NT!
The CofE is the Queen's Church and she is our supreme govenor therefore we render to the Queen what is the Queen's.
Then again the NT doesn't say there must not be an established church either.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The CofE is the Queen's Church and she is our supreme govenor therefore we render to the Queen what is the Queen's.
Right there, that makes the concept of establishment problematic for me.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The question I'm still waiting for Anglicans to answer is where in the New Testament does it say that they or any other church should be established or otherwise specially privileged in the state to begin with? There's lots in said NT which seems to propose a very different way for God's people to relate to the world they live in and the various governments they have to live under, and quite a lot of that teaching seems to positively reject the idea of establishment. Quoting supposed advantages of establishment doesn't mean much - if the NT rejects establishment then the list of 'advantages' would basically be a list of how the Anglicans and similar were tempted to disobey the NT!
And the answer you will likely get is that Anglicans do not believe that Scripture binds a church to a specific and fixed shape. Whether establishment or disestablishment, the Scriptures are silent, in which case, the Church exercising its careful discernment can decide under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
