|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: What's the matter with rural churches?
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
£8.75 a week in the collection plate ?
That is steep for anyone on benefits.
Believe it or not, it's (within 2p of, as I didn't actually look up the exact figure) the average in Wales, which is scarcely the richest part of Britain and has a significant proportion of people on benefits and pensioners.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not just pensioners. In our neck of the woods the average adult salary is well below £22K.
I was referring to the incumbent's stipend (again, I was quoting from memory: the actual figure is £22,127, from page 10 of this report). You may disagree with the level at which stipends are set, but it is what they are (I actually think they're quite reasonable). And even if you skimp on the incumbent, the other half of the cost of running a parish will still be there.
Such things as not paying parish shares and challenging the incumbent's expenses on the PCC are not a road I'd like to go along, although I do have sympathy for churches where that sort of thing seems to be the only option.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Many Nonconformists - Baptists & Congregationalists anyway - have to pay all their costs locally and know well that no offering = no minister. That encourages good giving ... but also means that big, rich churches can afford multiple staff and good facilities while small churches suffer.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
£8.75 a week in the collection plate ?
That is steep for anyone on benefits.
More to the point, it assumes that the Church of England operates by requiring that every church pay its own way regardless of its means. Thankfully it doesn't. Wealthier churches (which tend to be urban) subsidize poorer ones (which are often rural).
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Wealthier churches (which tend to be urban) subsidize poorer ones (which are often rural).
If they pay their parish share, that is ... (or the equivalent in other denominations). And that only covers ministry costs, doesn't it? Not keeping the roof on.
I presume that there may be some rural churches which are bankrolled by the giving of just one or two individuals. They can get into serious difficulty when such "givers" die and the rest of the congregation is asked to pay a realistic share.
[ 15. September 2013, 15:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
More to the point, it assumes that the Church of England operates by requiring that every church pay its own way regardless of its means. Thankfully it doesn't. Wealthier churches (which tend to be urban) subsidize poorer ones (which are often rural).
That can only work up to a point. If pushed to extremes, one could have small, stereotypically rural churches that complacently made no attempt at any sort of outreach, whilst neglecting urban (or, in practice, suburban) ministry. The norm has to be that a benefice should be able to function independently if the rest of the Church corporately fell into the sea.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Many Nonconformists - Baptists & Congregationalists anyway - have to pay all their costs locally and know well that no offering = no minister. That encourages good giving ... but also means that big, rich churches can afford multiple staff and good facilities while small churches suffer.
Sounds reminiscent of the Parable of the Sower. (I really am turning into an evangelical in my middle age...)
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Are the richer churches not able to adopt one of the smaller, struggling churches and allow them to share some of their resources?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
IIRC this has been done in one or two places, though I can't remember where. Sounds rather more useful IMHO than 'twinning' with a church in Germany or where-have-you.
I know that Parish Profiles, produced as adverts for a new priest during an interregnum, are duty bound to present the most positive picture possible of the parish (ah! Alliteration's artful aid always assists!), but ISTM that there are many small rural congregations around the UK doing their very best, not only to maintain a pattern of worship (however minimalist that may be, compared with previous years), but also to engage with whatever form of 'community' there is on their patch.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Are the richer churches not able to adopt one of the smaller, struggling churches and allow them to share some of their resources?
I've read that this happens occasionally. It would be interesting to know how it works out, because of course it challenges the very notion of (Baptist and URC) congregationalism.
Interconnectedness isn't always the saviour, though. The Methodists aren't congregational, and their circuit system binds churches together closely, but they close more churches than the other denominations, many of them rural. A circuit can offer any expertise and advice that it has to its member churches, but a circuit won't carry a church that can't pay its way. And there are congregations that wouldn't want such help either.
I suspect that it would be difficult in any case for rural churches to help each other in this way, because none of them are all that successful. It's just that some are getting by better than others. The help would have to be from town/suburb to the countryside, and there would possibly be cultural issues to overcome in that scenario.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Are the richer churches not able to adopt one of the smaller, struggling churches and allow them to share some of their resources?
When interviewed on the local radio station religious programme, some years ago, about two big churches that had done this, a former bishop of this diocese said they were 'unchristian'.
What I think he meant by this, was that if they had human or financial resources to spare, they should channel them through his diocesan structures rather than set up ad hoc relationships direct. I can sort of see why he didn't like it, but I didn't and still wouldn't agree agree with him. People are more likely to give and get involved in relationships they can see.
But, as a bishop, publicly on radio to condemn those that don't agree with your views on diocesan policy as 'unchristian', is way beyond the realm of legitimate self expression.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
That sort of policy (the rich churches choosing who they direct their resources to) might not be unchristian as such but it is definitely uncatholic. It's like those right-wingers who complain about taxes and think they should direct all their money to charities they approve of: in other words, keep in control.
The Church is not a federation of like-minded communities, it is a body. Therefore the whole body (acting through the bishop, synods etc) should decide how to allocate its resources. In St Paul's terms, it's not for the left foot to dictate whether or not the right buttock should be fed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
And was it the direct relationship that was described as unchristian? Or were they publicly saying that they were withholding their parish share because they didn't agree with diocese on some matter and the direct relationship was a form of powerplay?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I have known at least one pair of Baptist churches which have twinned in this way - except it was the large prosperous Home Counties rural church which was supporting the small inner-city one!
And each church sent groups of ?young people to stay in the other's environment for a week's holiday, to broaden their experience of life.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
There are 2 large things that help keep us afloat:
1. A worshipper who is extremely wealthy who, effectively, bankrolls the parish.
2. The fact that we stress that the church is the VILLAGE church - not denominational or of a class but for all of the village.
The latter means that one of the best attended events in the year is the annual requiem where all those from the village who have died during the year are remembered by name.
The church also acts as a centre (or runs/ organises/ kick-starts) for things like a free bus-service to the nearest local town for things like the doctor/dentist or hospital; a lunch club for all ages; a party for all newcomers so they can meet people (rural houses can be isolated with no visible neighbours); free church magazine subscription for a year after you move in; etc, etc.
I think we're doing a lot but the thing that worries is the lack of newcomers prepared to pitch in, join-up and actually DO something, rather than sit back..
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
