|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there a future for any church in the UK?
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But humans also hurt the poor, the prisoner and the immigrant - evil is clearly a human value too. I never get why humanists feel able to claim that good is not the prerogative of just the religious when it's clear that evil isn't either!
I suppose I would not call evil a 'value'. Humans behave in all ways, ranging from the really evil to the wonderfully good, because they are human, not because a 'God' or a 'Devil' make them. The majority do not go to the extremes.
--------------------
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
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But don't the cathedrals attract people who would not normally go near a church? OK, I guess they wander round as a tourist, but possibly the staff hope that a few get more interested.
They may, but its not exactly a cheap way to evangelise I'd guess.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But humans also hurt the poor, the prisoner and the immigrant - evil is clearly a human value too. I never get why humanists feel able to claim that good is not the prerogative of just the religious when it's clear that evil isn't either!
I suppose I would not call evil a 'value'. Humans behave in all ways, ranging from the really evil to the wonderfully good, because they are human, not because a 'God' or a 'Devil' make them. The majority do not go to the extremes.
But why is evil not a value to you, but good is? Also, most Christians don't believe that God makes people good and the devil (not all Christians really believe in the devil!)makes people evil, but that human nature is pre-disposed to evil and that God inspires people to want to do good. The devil doesn't have nearly as much power within standard Christian theology as people think. The God-devil dichotomy is from Christian-flavoured mythology like Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno, not actual Christian theology.
[ 30. July 2013, 14:29: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The God-devil dichotomy is from Christian-flavoured mythology like Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno, not actual Christian theology.
I wouldn't blame Dante. The devil in the Inferno is trapped in a pit of ice, and doesn't do much except flap his wings and get used by Dante as a climbing frame.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why is evil not a value to you, but good is?
I personally do not use, or even think of the word value when talking of 'evil'; nor do I talk of evil very much reallyas I'm far more likely to think something like, 'That is terrible.' I suppose that carries as much weight, but I don't really know. I know it is all part of the way humans are, and there have always been enough of the good ones to make it almost impossible that the 'bad' ones will be numerous enough to cause our extinction.
quote:
Also, most Christians don't believe that God makes people good and the devil (not all Christians really believe in the devil!)makes people evil, but that human nature is pre-disposed to evil and that God inspires people to want to do good.
Predisposed? No, I'd say have evolved systems of behavious which have resulted in the survival of the human race. I do not behave in an evil way at all an do not give any of the credit for that to God/god/s. My upbrining, my genetic makeup, the environment, education, etc etc made me into the person I am now.
--------------------
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
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why is evil not a value to you, but good is? Also, most Christians don't believe that God makes people good and the devil (not all Christians really believe in the devil!)makes people evil, but that human nature is pre-disposed to evil and that God inspires people to want to do good.
My understanding, and as a non-Christian I may well be wrong, is that to do evil is (by definition) to oppose God's will. If there is no God, there can be no evil. Wickedness is then defined in terms of the harm we do to each other.
I've never really understood how giving us a pre-disposition to oppose God (though jolly sporting of Her) makes it all our fault.
Oh Lord, who did beset my path with Whisky and with Gin,
Do you now impute my fall to Sin?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But why is evil not a value to you, but good is? Also, most Christians don't believe that God makes people good and the devil (not all Christians really believe in the devil!)makes people evil, but that human nature is pre-disposed to evil and that God inspires people to want to do good.
My understanding, and as a non-Christian I may well be wrong, is that to do evil is (by definition) to oppose God's will. If there is no God, there can be no evil. Wickedness is then defined in terms of the harm we do to each other.
I've never really understood how giving us a pre-disposition to oppose God (though jolly sporting of Her) makes it all our fault.
Oh Lord, who did beset my path with Whisky and with Gin,
Do you now impute my fall to Sin?
Well, then you get into pre-destination and original sin, both doctrines being ones I struggle with (even as a Christian). Re original sin, I tend to go more with the Orthodox view.
But certainly I do believe that humans are innately prone to evil - but I see that more in terms of hurting others, and therefore harming the image of God in others is the sin. I realise you weren't being literal with that rhyming couplet but I think it is a good example of actual sin and the perception of sin, which goes with actual Christianity and the perception of Christianity. Whisky and gin are not sinful. Enjoying whisky and gin is not sinful. Using whisky and gin in such a way that harms others is sinful. However for some reason, there's a perception of Christians that we never have fun and would turn our noses up at whisky and gin - I don't know why.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
there's a perception of Christians that we never have fun and would turn our noses up at whisky and gin - I don't know why.
Certainly not my intention. I know few Christians but those I do seem to enjoy life as much as the others. Nor do I think the couplet was about that. I believe it's a rewrite of a stanza of Omar Khayyam:
Oh Thou, who didst with Pitfall and with Gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou will not with Predestin'd Evil round
Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin?
That does seem to suggest Gin is a Sin - but bear in mind that Fitzgerald is (perhaps too freely) putting the words in the mouth of a C11 Muslim. References to alcohol are (probably) metaphors.
But certainly I do believe that humans are innately prone to evil - but I see that more in terms of hurting others, and therefore harming the image of God in others is the sin.
I'd say we're mostly prone to cocking things up and hurting others as part of it. A great deal of the suffering we cause is due to not thinking of the consequences of our actions or placing our wants above theirs. I tend to reserve 'evil' for people who actually want to cause pain. That seems to me much more rare and I doubt all humans are 'innately' prone to it.
But that's just the way I use the words, no more.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Make that "was a revolution". There's nothing revolutionary about the "comfortable pew" Christianity of the moment.
Why was St. Paul's the focus of the Occupy crowd?
It wasn't. The object was the exchange, and Paternoster Square, from which, it being private property, the protesters were excluded, forcing them to the adjacent churchyard.
Sorry to be day late. RL gets in the way
But the hierarchy of the Church supported the bankers and then became an object of derision/attack among the protestors, who also got increased support from other people as a result. The Church did not look good on that one, except for the notable individuals who took on the establishment (and paid a price for it!)
Maybe a few more mavericks and fewer hierarchialists would help shift the Church. At least, we now seem to have the Pope on side.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Stepping again to say that Dan Savage addresses the major issue being debated im relation to the OP.
It is no good wringing your hands and wondering what to do about the negative attitude of those "outside" the religion. If you aren't "out" living your life as the best Christian you can be, and you aren't countering some of the really negative stuff that certain people have done in the name of Christianity, then there will be no church - and that quite soon.
If the only people heard from are the nasties and the negatives, then: what is the point? Who wants to join a group that revels in idiocy?
But, just like preaching the Gospel all the time, but only using words when necessary, one has to BE a Christian all the time, only explaining oneself as needed. That is really all you can do.
It comes a cross as a bit NALT (a Savagism meaning "Not All Like That") but that is the only way to have it come to something.
Don't rely on your Bishop or the Dean and Chapter to speak for you.
You aren't the Dean and Chapter; you probably don't want to be; but you are (except for Yorick*) a Christian. BE ONE.
* And I think Yorick understands Christianity quite well, even if he does don the robe of Devil's Advocate.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Raptor Eye
But unless churches have a business-like approach to maintaining and raising their income, or can encourage the wider to society to contribute, where is the money to look after these buildings - and to do all the community work and send money abroad - to come from?
This is what the National Trust says:
quote:
'The estimated cost of repairing all England's 14,500 listed places of worship is almost a billion pounds over the next decade [from 2007] - and that doesn't include thousands more unlisted ecclesiastical buildings. The bill is almost three times what the parishes, by the most optimistic calculations, could possibly raise. Over the same period the trickle of churches becoming redundant is becoming a torrent, and the statutory charity, the Churches Conservation Trust, will be able to save no more than a handful of the most important.'
Maybe among some congregations the power of prayer alone carries them forward. But that means so many more will have to end up closed.
It's not the 'power of prayer' alone which will carry them forward, it's the guidance of the Holy Spirit which will lead Christians to carry out God's will, including being led to whatever work must be done to fund it, re the story of the coin in the mouth of the fish.
Where leaders follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, more people come to Christ. If the church congregations grew, there would be less likelihood of closures.
I'm not convinced that those who decided to import a 'heritage tourist attraction' culture into cathedrals, so that those praying feel as if they are a spectacle, and the silence is broken by tills ringing in the shop, were following God's guidance at the time.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
That does seem to suggest Gin is a Sin - but bear in mind that Fitzgerald is (perhaps too freely) putting the words in the mouth of a C11 Muslim.
'Gin' means game trap. It's got nothing to do with alcohol.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
That does seem to suggest Gin is a Sin - but bear in mind that Fitzgerald is (perhaps too freely) putting the words in the mouth of a C11 Muslim.
'Gin' means game trap. It's got nothing to do with alcohol.
That makes much more sense, going with 'pitfall'. Presumably the popularised version I first used the convenient pun with the other meaning of 'gin'
I think I probably assumed alcohol because the whole poem is, as it were, marinaded in alcohol. But of course it's always wine.
Thanks for that.
But alas
... Morning in the Bowl of Night
Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
and I must leave the Ship for a while.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
if it were just a matter of maintaining the buildings, then I think it would be easier to find the money, even from non-churchgoers who are keen to see a beautiful and historic building preserved.
Being in a Church which has, over the last two years, faced a spate of very expensive vandalisms, thefts and desecrations we have been deeply moved by the donations from the Community, many of whom never come to Church but appreciate the historical nature of the Church.
As for selling of our Church, as a Grade I listed building (possibly inside as well as out but I would have to check our records) it would present great difficulties, especially if to be converted into anything except a museum... However, just to say, there are several historical homes that have been passed to English Heritage in the past but the residents have been allowed a set amount of the space to continue to live in the building, so I doubt that there would be an issue with Cathedrals being handed over, but services still being allowed to be held...
On the other side, the Parish in which I was born sold of their Church (a Bishop Wilson creation which was turned into offices) and moved into the old School Building and converted that into the Church, though I would have to ask my Mother about the details (ie. congregation numbers etc.) since it was before I was born and done whilst she was properly involved with that Church, but the lifting of responsibility for the upkeep of an old building which was built for a time when the town was much more important and held significant civic events seems to have been a relief from what I gleaned in conversation in the past.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I don't fear the anti-religious animus of today's society; to my mind if the Church isn't causing at least a degree of offence to the prevailing mores of the age and encountering opposition, then it's not doing its job properly!
As to whether religion should stay out of the 'public square', try telling that to MLK, Tutu or Wilberforce...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Well yes, but if I thought opposition to the church was because we were challenging oppressive power structures, seeking to free captives and so on I'd agree. Unfortunately, I find amongst people I know it's because we've got it in for the queers, are institutionally sexist and justify it all by reference to an invisible sky fairy whose existence we cannot demonstrate.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Third attempt at answering this while travelling
Matt, don't you think much of the animus is deserved? With scandals, child abuse, gullibility, homo phobia, doesn't the church (generally) look hypocritical when it precarious love and exhibits hate ? And then there's all the 6 impossible things before breakfast.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Third attempt at answering this while travelling
Matt, don't you think much of the animus is deserved? With scandals, child abuse, gullibility, homo phobia, doesn't the church (generally) look hypocritical when it precarious love and exhibits hate ? And then there's all the 6 impossible things before breakfast.
Some people, in some churches, sometimes. Unfortunately the press and a great many people argue from the particular to the general. And good news isn't news, though truth to power sometimes is (remember "Faith in the City").
I like "precarious love" though - sometimes typos are better!
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Third attempt at answering this while travelling
Matt, don't you think much of the animus is deserved? With scandals, child abuse, gullibility, homo phobia, doesn't the church (generally) look hypocritical when it precarious love and exhibits hate ? And then there's all the 6 impossible things before breakfast. [/QUOI hate predicative text ~ preaches not precarious
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Some of it is deserved, yes. But the Church being prophetic is inevitably going to attract opposition eg: MLK and Co challenging segregation, ++Justin at least trying to take a pop at Wonga. My concern is when it fits into the prevailing ethos of the age too comfortably...
[ 31. July 2013, 10:18: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Apologies for failing to code earlier - posting on a mobile phone whilst travelling is harder than reading (I kept losing the connection and several attempts at posts).
Matt - how do you tell that something is of the age?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My concern is when it fits into the prevailing ethos of the age too comfortably...
Doesn't it worry you that so many of the doctrines of the early church fit perfectly into the prevailing ethos of the age in which they were codified? Or is it something only us modern types are likely to be guilty of?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think the Early Church was counter-cultural rather than conformist in many ways and one of the fruits of that was persecution. How to determine whether or not we ape the prevailing social mores indiscriminately requires great discernment and a willingness to listen to the voice of God and be conformed to His Will. Rom 12;1-2 and all that....
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My concern is when it fits into the prevailing ethos of the age too comfortably...
Doesn't it worry you that so many of the doctrines of the early church fit perfectly into the prevailing ethos of the age in which they were codified? Or is it something only us modern types are likely to be guilty of?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Important question. It's too easy to parrot 'giving way to the spirit of the age.' Very often, the Holy Spirit has been at work on the 'spirit of the age' a long time before the Church catches up. And very often not, of course. Wisdom is necessary to discern which.
[Crossposted, and agreeing, with Matt Black.]
[ 31. July 2013, 16:58: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not the 'power of prayer' alone which will carry them forward, it's the guidance of the Holy Spirit which will lead Christians to carry out God's will, including being led to whatever work must be done to fund it, re the story of the coin in the mouth of the fish.
Where leaders follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, more people come to Christ. If the church congregations grew, there would be less likelihood of closures.
I'm not convinced that those who decided to import a 'heritage tourist attraction' culture into cathedrals, so that those praying feel as if they are a spectacle, and the silence is broken by tills ringing in the shop, were following God's guidance at the time.
What your first two paragraphs imply is that when churches close it's because those Christians haven't been following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's a sad thing to hear, especially for those of us who've attended churches that closed.
If you live in London or the South East (i.e. where most of the flourishing churches are) then church closure probably seems far away, but the stats aren't good for churches in many parts of the country. For them, waiting for super spiritual ministers who are also gifted at leading ageing and often demoralised congregations towards transformation will frequently mean waiting for closure. Maybe a great leader will turn up in 10 or 20 years' time, but what do you do until then if the money's running out and it's getting harder and harder to fill the offices of the church?
For many churches it'll either be closure or a revival, but even revivals don't just happen; something was already bubbling away. And has a revival ever happened in or around a cathedral? They probably benefit from revivals in other churches, but in the meantime, again, they need filthy cash.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What your first two paragraphs imply is that when churches close it's because those Christians haven't been following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It's a sad thing to hear, especially for those of us who've attended churches that closed.
If you live in London or the South East (i.e. where most of the flourishing churches are) then church closure probably seems far away, but the stats aren't good for churches in many parts of the country. For them, waiting for super spiritual ministers who are also gifted at leading ageing and often demoralised congregations towards transformation will frequently mean waiting for closure. Maybe a great leader will turn up in 10 or 20 years' time, but what do you do until then if the money's running out and it's getting harder and harder to fill the offices of the church?
For many churches it'll either be closure or a revival, but even revivals don't just happen; something was already bubbling away. And has a revival ever happened in or around a cathedral? They probably benefit from revivals in other churches, but in the meantime, again, they need filthy cash.
I believe that if it's God's will for a church building to continue to be used by those who serve, God will provide guidance through the Holy Spirit so that funding will be sourced. Sometimes people stand in the way of God's will. Sometimes a building may lie fallow for a while, perhaps this too is God's will. I know of a church building, disused for decades, which was surrounded by a new housing estate and brought back into use with enthusiasm and funding.
The future of the Church must involve putting Christ first, not cash. He is the great leader, who is here now.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In my city the churches are often sold and used as mosques or Sikh temples, or occasionally for other purposes. Ideally the buildings are used as churches by some of the new denominations, but that depends on the area. I can't imagine there are many circumstances where a denomination will happily leave a church building to stand empty. Maybe that's an Anglican thing.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Our little rural congo decided to "stop worrying and love each other (and the neighbours) and God, working, oddly enough, through the Bishop, gave us a really good chance to make it work.
And it does continue to work, so long as we keep from whining about "where will the money come from?"
I wouldn't say we have too much money, but we have enough that we can give useful amounts away to those in need, while building community.
In fact, when we say that all of a particular collection will be given away, people put more in the plate.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
How would the debasement of these places further the Gospel?
You mean apart from allowing all the money that currently goes on their upkeep to go to the poor instead?
Durham Cathedral costs the church £60,000 a week. That's over THREE MILLION POUNDS a year. Or, if you prefer, enough to pay 250 poor families a weekly benefit of £240, every week of the year.
So which is more Christian - to spend that money on feeding and housing the poor, or to spend it on a big fancy building for the church? And if the church is allowed to choose the latter, how the hell can it preach at me if I choose to spend my cash on big fancy things for myself instead of giving it to the poor?
But a lot of that money will be paying people to do stuff, vergers, clerk if words & team, contractors etc, even energy bills will be paying people at the end of the day. Having been unemployed for 18 months before finding a job working in a historic church, I'm glad they pay my wages. In fact I'm paid out of investment funds as we have a good "endowment" (thank you Elisabeth I)
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
But a lot of that money will be paying people to do stuff, vergers, clerk if words & team, contractors etc, even energy bills will be paying people at the end of the day.
A lot of it? All of it, more like!
But that's also true of every single penny we choose to spend on ourselves. Christian leaders may cry out against the wastefulness of a billionaire buying himself a luxury yacht, but the workers at the shipyard that builds it will have a different opinion!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
But a lot of that money will be paying people to do stuff, vergers, clerk if words & team, contractors etc, even energy bills will be paying people at the end of the day.
A lot of it? All of it, more like!
But that's also true of every single penny we choose to spend on ourselves. Christian leaders may cry out against the wastefulness of a billionaire buying himself a luxury yacht, but the workers at the shipyard that builds it will have a different opinion!
A basic knowledge of Keynesian economics will tell you that not all spending is equal - spending on luxury yachts is proportionally less likely to make it down into the wages of ordinary workers than, say, spending on mass produced cars. This is because luxury goods have a much higher profit margin so a big chunk of the money rolls straight back into the pockets of wealthy owners. For mass produced goods the margins are lower so more workers are likely getting paid out of every pound spent. Churches rarely pay excessive wages, so spending on Cathedrals likely puts money into a lot of pockets. I don't think that alone is a reason to do it, of course.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...Of course, the majority needing to find their voice to counter the overly loud voice of the extreme minority works on both sides. Those most vocally pushing the 'secular agenda' are also from a vocal minority. They probably don't represent the majority of the non-religious population any more than Christian Voice represents the majority of the Christian population.
Ha ha, good old Stevie-boy Green! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) It might be worth pointing out that this is a programme from the good old secular BBC - which rarely has a good word to say about religion, especially christianity, yet seems to let the crackpot loony-tune fringe's views have free reign.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
And a leader from the Independent, and nearly all the live comedians in the UK, and ... That the thread was partially triggered by a show wasn't meant to suggest that this was the only place I encounter these anti-Christian sentiment. I've met it reading religious books on trains.
There's a thread in Dead Horses about anti-Christian sentiments in the LGB communities. Justinian posted this earlier, which seems to me encapsulates why churches in the UK are failing.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Ha ha, good old Stevie-boy Green! It might be worth pointing out that this is a programme from the good old secular BBC - which rarely has a good word to say about religion, especially christianity, yet seems to let the crackpot loony-tune fringe's views have free reign.
Controversial and outrageous views make more popular reporting, don't they? Sadly, ISTM that even the more mainstream Christian, um, voices in the media are often sending the message that Christianity is about disapproving of various things. Maybe the situation is different locally but wouldn't it be great if, at all levels of society, churches and Christians were more known for what we are for (justice, care of the disadvantaged etc.) than for what we are against?
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin:
You mean apart from allowing all the money that currently goes on their upkeep to go to the poor instead?
And the fact that you give the poor some money means they'll be more receptive to a Gospel pruned of all beauty?
If all the beauty in the Gospel is put there by it being in a large and old stone building then the Gospel isn't worth the paper it's written on. Literally.
[ 01. August 2013, 10:47: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There's a thread in Dead Horses about anti-Christian sentiments in the LGB communities. Justinian posted this earlier, which seems to me encapsulates why churches in the UK are failing.
Indeed. The biggest draw of the Churches should be that they point to a better world, and lead us to getting there. And the Churches should have, and maintain, moral authority - without it they have nothing non-supernatural to offer.
And right now due to various positions (mostly Dead Horses - note how on most of them almost everyone on one side is Christian) the CofE, the RCC, the Orthodox, and most evangelicals, the average person of my age and below is probably less likely to believe that someone is a decent human being if they are associated with a church than if they aren't. The various branches of the Church generally have moral authority in the secular world around that of politicians or journalists.
[ 01. August 2013, 11:01: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If all the beauty in the Gospel is put there by it being in a large and old stone building then the Gospel isn't worth the paper it's written on. Literally.
My thoughts exactly. Aesthetics are important (to some people more than others) but sinking millions into the repair, maintenance and ongoing running costs of ornate buildings isn't remotely what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about, IMO. The Gospel's beauty comes from God's gracious offer of salvation, wholeness, and a place in his family.
Sorry to bang on again about the New Testament church but the desire to own buildings is completely absent from the pages of the NT. So I'd say we need to examine very carefully our desire in this direction; is it enhancing the Gospel or is it consuming money that would be better used in a different way?
--------------------
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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sorry to bang on again about the New Testament church but the desire to own buildings is completely absent from the pages of the NT. So I'd say we need to examine very carefully our desire in this direction; is it enhancing the Gospel or is it consuming money that would be better used in a different way?
Unfortunately it is not that simple, nor really that practical I think...
1. Having a Church building, should, itself act as a proselytising tool for the community. I think of towns where the tallest building still remains the Church tower (for example York Minster which by local law has to be - I believe that is still the case anyhow). By having a visible sign of Christian presence people are reminded day in and day out about the presence of the Christian faith in the world. Whilst this is a more pertinent point for older Churches which have some gravitas to them, and don't just look like a modern barn or something, even modern buildings have the same ability to act as a symbol of presence, as well as a place of active, incarnational outreach to the community.
2. As a second point, especially concerning older buildings, the denominations that have them (ie. CofE, CinW) have a tough time of getting rid of them, especially the oldest, most expensive to upkeep ones at least. Even if we wanted to be rid of our church building (a point which has been raised at our PCC in the past - all congregations would use the smaller, much more 'modern' Church in the Parish for all services instead) the reality of being able to do so was bleak, so either way, we spend the money on a building that we are stuck with, of end up probably faced by a fine from CADW, and a more expensive bill for cumulative repairs, if we were to just abandon it and leave it to fall to rack and ruin...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Having a Church building, should, itself act as a proselytising tool for the community. I think of towns where the tallest building still remains the Church tower (for example York Minster which by local law has to be - I believe that is still the case anyhow). By having a visible sign of Christian presence people are reminded day in and day out about the presence of the Christian faith in the world.
Hmm, colour me unconvinced, sorry. Is there any evidence that this effect is at all significant? Wouldn't it be a far more productive witness if the money spent on maintaining such buildings was spent instead on providing for those in need within the local community?
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As a second point, especially concerning older buildings, the denominations that have them (ie. CofE, CinW) have a tough time of getting rid of them, especially the oldest, most expensive to upkeep ones at least.
Yes, point taken! I realise there are barriers, but I was really lamenting our desire to have large, grand church buildings. If a church is at least trying to spend less money on buildings (by owning one that is more fit-for-purpose, or by hiring space as they need it) then all well and good, 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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It all sounds very good, this theory about getting rid of church buildings but for the church I've seen do this, it hasn't gone well. The local Elim church sold its tin tabernacle and now hires places to meet. That congregation has reduced and the pastor and his wife are working in paid jobs because they can't ask the congregation to pay any more, that congregation used to support a paid pastor. The tin tabernacle was used as a site to build housing.
Someone asserted on the Ship a few years ago that getting rid of church buildings doesn't save the church money in the long run. There was a lot more detail to the comments, reference to somewhere which had done it, but I can't remember who and when.
And, yes, I have experience of the community choosing to support a much loved town building, even when they are not church members. It does happen.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Having a Church building, should, itself act as a proselytising tool for the community. I think of towns where the tallest building still remains the Church tower (for example York Minster which by local law has to be - I believe that is still the case anyhow). By having a visible sign of Christian presence people are reminded day in and day out about the presence of the Christian faith in the world.
Hmm, colour me unconvinced, sorry. Is there any evidence that this effect is at all significant? Wouldn't it be a far more productive witness if the money spent on maintaining such buildings was spent instead on providing for those in need within the local community?
Not that I can categorically point to...
I guess I don't really believe in the effect that much and would prefer it if the Church building itself were better known for what happens from there in terms of outreach and helping the local community. Unfortunately it would require a certain amount of joined up thinking (something which most denominations don't seem to be all that good at IMO) about using the space much more creatively, and allowing the space to be used much more flexibly, which unfortunately brings us back to point 2 I made above.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It all sounds very good, this theory about getting rid of church buildings but for the church I've seen do this, it hasn't gone well. The local Elim church sold its tin tabernacle and now hires places to meet. That congregation has reduced and the pastor and his wife are working in paid jobs because they can't ask the congregation to pay any more, that congregation used to support a paid pastor. The tin tabernacle was used as a site to build housing.
Someone asserted on the Ship a few years ago that getting rid of church buildings doesn't save the church money in the long run. There was a lot more detail to the comments, reference to somewhere which had done it, but I can't remember who and when.
And, yes, I have experience of the community choosing to support a much loved town building, even when they are not church members. It does happen.
Lack of joined up thinking...
The Church I mention up thread used to have 2 cottages as well, during the move from the Old Church building into the School building they sold of the cottages (which weren't in too bad nick, required some minor work) instead of taking the long term view of renting. By now there would have been a healthy return from the rent which would be enabling the congregation to do outreach etc. into the community, instead of worrying about raising ministry share etc.
Churches seem to have a short sighted view towards property, sell it now and never have the chance of reaping anything from it, rather than putting out a little money and gaining it back rather quickly in the housing climate. Of course I accept that some properties are best just to sell off (especially some of the older, more run down Parsonages of the Victorian era - regardless of how wonderful looking they are) but it is not a properly thought through policy and ends in missed opportunities in the future...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Hmm, colour me unconvinced, sorry. Is there any evidence that this effect is at all significant? Wouldn't it be a far more productive witness if the money spent on maintaining such buildings was spent instead on providing for those in need within the local community?
But a lot of the time the buildings themselves are necessary to provide for those in need in the local community. My parish holds homeless shelters, rents space to a local free school that hasn't found a permanent location, and holds children's play groups and holiday camps.
I attended a church without a building for many years - not only was the amount of money spent on rent astronomical, but it affected the sense of community too. Then there were last minute venue changes for services, a different location for Sunday service and midweek services, etc.
Something I'd like to see more of is a group of churches purchasing a building and sharing the space. For example our local community center is a joint churches initiative, and in addition to youth clubs holds both CofE and various evangelical/Pentecostal services on the weekends. It would be more cost effective and then at least there's a "church building" in a community.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It all sounds very good, this theory about getting rid of church buildings but for the church I've seen do this, it hasn't gone well. The local Elim church sold its tin tabernacle and now hires places to meet. That congregation has reduced and the pastor and his wife are working in paid jobs because they can't ask the congregation to pay any more, that congregation used to support a paid pastor. The tin tabernacle was used as a site to build housing.
I think it depends - some churches do well in rented accommodation, and some don't. There are pros and cons to each, and far more factors at play than simply switching from an owned to a rented venue. Good planning and having an open and honest debate within the congregation must all be essential.
Congregations often have an emotional attachment to a particular building, but they need to decide what their theology is. Is the church the building or the people? My former minister used to say 'The church is not the building!' but he never explained to the whole congregation the theology behind that. The clergy need to be more forceful about this because in future Christians will have to grow less attached to buildings. The demographic reality will demand it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Joined-up thinking and flexible use of space, indeed! If a building enables a particular church to more effectively serve their community then that's great. I just think there's too much emotional attachment on the part of Christians to their buildings, especially if SvitlanaV2 is right about the impending demographic reality (which I suppose she is, in the UK anyway).
--------------------
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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
This link* is a response to the OP Indy link...
* Please note that this is a link to the Guardian newspaper for those that feel it necessary to know where all the news source comes from so they can avoid off-shore, tax dodging, hypocritical media sources ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Joined-up thinking and flexible use of space, indeed! If a building enables a particular church to more effectively serve their community then that's great. I just think there's too much emotional attachment on the part of Christians to their buildings, especially if SvitlanaV2 is right about the impending demographic reality (which I suppose she is, in the UK anyway).
It can be a bit more complex. I have seen situations of great turmoil in congregations where I wonder if the building did not end up bearing the brunt of ministry when the clergy and people were doing no such thing, preferring their spats and scarring. As personal, theological, and liturgical differences needed time to settle (and sometimes they didn't!), an older building served as a useful focus and as a mutually acceptable ground for common endeavour. I can think of two cases where the love of the building saved the day. Note, as well, that a culturally-significant building can be a ground for those on the fringes of the church can come in and begin to enter into activities. I'm not saying that this is inevitable and there's likely plenty of places where it won't, but wonder if hyperedificiophilia cannot work to the good.
Seekingsister's idea of a shared church building is a good one. In Canada, because of fierce religious divides, we have many small towns with a surfeit of buildings, with congregations now struggling under the burden-- the United Church of Canada was formed, in great part, by prairie farmers who could not see the point of having 3-4 churches at a crossroads. Their common sense could be examined sympathetically.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But in a society when 6.3% of the population attended (a Christian) church on Census Sunday in 2005 how much weight is going to be given to voices trying to sway opinion from among those church leaders?
I do think religion should have a place. A return of Christian values to Government (helping the sick, poor, prisoner, immigrant) and banking would not be a bad thing. "There's no such thing as society" has worked really well so far for the rich, but the divides are getting deeper and wider.
I am really asking what when this anti-religion commentary is mainstream and growing, what chance of those religious values keeping any foothold.
Fair question. The counterpoint is that other publications are a lot more positive about Christianity (the Mail and the Times for example). Also not just about whether or not a point is being made from a faith perspective, but the validity of the point. Justin Welby has made some canny moves in his approach to lending agencies - arguably he's been setting the political agenda on that one. The fact so many food banks are being set up is drawing attention to the impact of welfare reforms (which is a wider and multi-faceted debate), but is an example of the church getting a voice on the back of addressing a social need.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmm ... yes, but having positive reviews by the Daily Mail and, less so, the Times could be counter-productive ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I think CK's point about the prevailing current and climate of opinion being fairly anti Christianity and certainly anti-church is a fair one. I'm involved in creative writing and poetry groups and I've lost count of the number of times someone gets up at an open-mic with some kind of unoriginal and ill-informed rant against the evils of organised religion ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Like as if they're the first person to have noticed ...
Similarly, I posted something mildly jokey on FB t'other week which just happened to have a religious element to it and I received snarky comments from atheists pointing out how wicked and evil religious people are and how awful it all is and yadda yadda yadda as if I was completely unaware that there were negative things that could be said about those who hold a faith position ...
I don't think we help ourselves much, it has to be said.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
