|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lay knowledge of the CofE?
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I don’t know which part of the CofE you are living with but there are no big donations form anybody in my CofE church, the only money we have comes from the people in the church itself.
The CofE gave us the building, but to be quite honest it costs us an arm and a leg to keep going.
It provides the vicar but we have to pay for them, in our parish share over £2000 a month before we pay our other bills.
So there would be no point any one joining us thinking it will save them money as we need to congregations contribution or we will not be able to keep open.
Thing is, £2000 a month doesn't cover the cost of your Vicar, not by a long shot (assuming they're full time). It might cover their basic stipend, but it won't cover the cost of maintaining the Vicarage, the cost of clergy pensions et al. Nor will it provide any contribution to the support your Vicar may or may not get in terms of training, retreats, advice at the deanery or diocesan level and so on. To give you an idea, I'm treasurer for the local Church of Scotland, and we've been advised that the real cost of employing our minister is something in excess of £40 000, of which we contribute about £18 000. The CofE does redistribute funds from wealthy to less well off parishes quite extensively, but it also makes up some of the gap from central funds. A lot less than it used to, but still some.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
CofE churches with and income over a certain amount has to be registered with the charity commission too and comply with it's regulations. Eventually this will reach down to all CofE Churches.
Even half of our own congregation believe that some mysterious 'they' pays for our church and ministry.
Then we have to deal with parishioners who it think that because we are the established church means that everything should be free and when we talk finances, complain that we are only wanting their money. Yes we want it to keep their church open..
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I don’t know which part of the CofE you are living with but there are no big donations form anybody in my CofE church, the only money we have comes from the people in the church itself.
The CofE gave us the building, but to be quite honest it costs us an arm and a leg to keep going.
It provides the vicar but we have to pay for them, in our parish share over £2000 a month before we pay our other bills.
So there would be no point any one joining us thinking it will save them money as we need to congregations contribution or we will not be able to keep open.
Thing is, £2000 a month doesn't cover the cost of your Vicar, not by a long shot (assuming they're full time). It might cover their basic stipend, but it won't cover the cost of maintaining the Vicarage, the cost of clergy pensions et al. Nor will it provide any contribution to the support your Vicar may or may not get in terms of training, retreats, advice at the deanery or diocesan level and so on. To give you an idea, I'm treasurer for the local Church of Scotland, and we've been advised that the real cost of employing our minister is something in excess of £40 000, of which we contribute about £18 000. The CofE does redistribute funds from wealthy to less well off parishes quite extensively, but it also makes up some of the gap from central funds. A lot less than it used to, but still some.
Two points to that:-
I am well aware what the parish share covers,the last estimate of true costs that we were given by our diocese was £39,000. My church, like many, doesn’t have it’s own vicar it is part of a group who between them, pay more than the cost of the vicar who serves them all.
Secondly, yes there is a from of subsidy within the CofE, richer churches pay more parish share poorer pay less. But the cost is subsidesd by other church members elsewhere and not some mysterious large funding soemwhere. My church group is in a deprived area but as I said between them more than covers all the costs of the clergy.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Jengie Jon - I didn't include the Charity Commissioners into that list because the new threshold is £5,000 income - this weekend's event will more than raise that before costs and possibly after too. We are registered with the Charity Commissioners, have been for years - under the previous figures. The Parish Share that this one church pays is £90,000 odd. Which more than pays for one minister. The church is part of a team and the whole team Parish Share is roughly double that across three churches. We more than pay for the two ministers and quite a bit towards the curate being trained. And when the current ministers retire, they will be replaced by one minister. Which will put the smaller parish churches in jeopardy.
And neither did I include all the Diocesan hoops to get permission to do any work. It's taking months to get approval to replace the stolen lead. And that's an urgent repair that has to be done before it snows.
[ 07. December 2013, 09:15: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Yes the church commissioner do subsidise the clergy pensions and also some of the national church admin such as payrolls.
It also pays towards the work of bishops and cathedrals, which has no bearing on the cost of parish ministry.
As far as I know there is also grant systems where I think you can put in applications for projects such as mission. But I am not sure as we have never had any money from them. They do spend an chunk of money on mission.
However it does not give directly to parishes to pay parish expenses. So anybody joining the CofE, needs to know that they will have to be a part of the system, that pays the full running cost of the church. If you want the heating on you have to pay for it. Want the organ repaired you have to pay for it. Want the grass mown then do it yourself or pay somebody to do it for you. Want to run a mission project, you have to find the way to fund it yourself, either through parish giving or have somebody who had the time and energy to fundraise for you.
However often we tell people that they are the ones responsible for the parish costs, they do not hear it, we have congregation members who think that by putting £1 a week on the plate they are being generous, because we have things paid for. Then complain that we haven’t had the heating on long enough.
My diocese has few reaerves and gives nothing to parishes from the. Any reserves that our parishes have are from previous congregations giving not the national church. We have some from legacies of past members, that is all, there is nothing from anywhere else.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've lived in a parish that couldn't afford it's parish share (it is a strong suggestion in the Church of England, not compulsory as in the Church of Scotland), and the cost of our shared Vicar were met centrally. Some of that will have come from wealthy parishes that overpaid their share, but some will have come from the funds of the diocese and church commissioners. No, there is no earmark "here's some money to pay your heating bill", but when an impoverished parish (congregation ~20 in a ward high on the IMD list) doesn't pay its parish share it doesn't lose access to either Priest or Bishop. The local Baptist church here can only call a minister if they are sure they can provide the funds to support them in the long term or that they can be self-supporting. As a consequence they haven't called a minister for several years. That makes a big difference to what the church does and how it operates.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No, so called "wealthy" parishes do not over pay their Parish Share, they get charged a disproportionately larger Parish Share to allow the Diocese to support parishes that can't pay their Parish Share. Which makes those churches who refuse to pay their Parish Share or not pay it in full less than helpful.
We have several local churches that have chosen not to pay their Parish Share. One afforded a new bell tower and bells in that same time period, and weren't impressed when they didn't get their own vicar but had to share. Another really stretched the Diocese when they got involved in something very public and couldn't deal with the resulting publicity and issues and had to be supported through it. Teeth-grindingly frustrating to watch this and to be on stewardship drives and continual fundraising to make sure that the local parish share was covered and there is money for mission and other work.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Another one chiming in to ask what large donations in the CofE?
There are some, though. During the interval last night at a concert in the parish church here, the Vicar murmured to me "rather a good gift day this year, 90k ... about 50% up on last year."
I hope I succeeded in conveying a mild distaste for mentioning sums of money. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, so called "wealthy" parishes do not over pay their Parish Share, they get charged a disproportionately larger Parish Share to allow the Diocese to support parishes that can't pay their Parish Share. Which makes those churches who refuse to pay their Parish Share or not pay it in full less than helpful.
I may be misremembering the details, but my recollection is that while yes, some wealthy parishes were assessed for a bigger share than accounted for by what they were provided with by the wider church, they also gave into diocesan funds above and beyond that share. Something for which those parishes that couldn't afford their share (and I mean couldn't, not wouldn't) were very grateful.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've lived in a parish that couldn't afford it's parish share (it is a strong suggestion in the Church of England, not compulsory as in the Church of Scotland), and the cost of our shared Vicar were met centrally. Some of that will have come from wealthy parishes that overpaid their share, but some will have come from the funds of the diocese and church commissioners. No, there is no earmark "here's some money to pay your heating bill", but when an impoverished parish (congregation ~20 in a ward high on the IMD list) doesn't pay its parish share it doesn't lose access to either Priest or Bishop. The local Baptist church here can only call a minister if they are sure they can provide the funds to support them in the long term or that they can be self-supporting. As a consequence they haven't called a minister for several years. That makes a big difference to what the church does and how it operates.
there are Diocese who say 'don't pay share don't get a vicar'. or other sanctions. if they don't pay their share it is not paid by the church commissioners but by other parishes who do pay their's. This is putting some diocese in tricky financial positions
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@SvitlanaV2 - ok, fair calls ... I s'pose you were caught in the cross-fire when I was venting my spleen - more at Stephen Langton than anyone else - at the suggestion that all would be rosy if everyone left unbiblical structures like the CofE in favour of apparently more biblical structures such as those he fondly imagines to be found in his own church or outside of the Establishment sector.
Don't get me wrong, I've been happily involved with a Baptist church in the past and have a lot of time for the non-conformist way of doing things - I'm not saying that the CofE is 'right' and the URCs, Methodists, Baptists and so on are 'wrong' - far from it.
All I'm saying is that the problems don't immediately go away if you go independent or if you were able to disentangle the CofE from the apparatus of the state. Whether that is good, bad or indifferent is a different issue.
As far as lay involvement goes, well, I think the posts we've just had from Arethosemyfeet and Curiosity Killed indicate that lay movers-and-shakers and getting-involved-ers in the CofE have their work cut out on a local level - buildings, parish share, fundraising etc etc etc .
I wouldn't want to make invidious comparisons between the amount of work involved in any of that between your average CofE parish and your average Baptist, Methodist or URC congregation - comparisons are onerous. What you gain on the roundabouts you lose on the swings and vice-versa.
Jengie Jon might be right that non-conformist churches have all sorts of headaches when it comes to the Charity Commission and English Heritage etc but I know Anglican parishes which have also had loads of issues in those directions too. The issues might be different but there are still obstacles and hurdles.
Non-conformist churches simply have a different set of obstacles and hurdles. The CofE will have some headaches that non-conformists don't have and vice-versa.
It's all a case of six and two-threes as they say in Yorkshire.
I don't carry a candle for Establishment, for heirarchy or the status quo ... I'm not particularly happy in my parish here ... I'm no more a card-carrier for the CofE than I am for the Baptists, say, the Methodists or anyone else. They've all got their strengths and weaknesses. On a personal level I've got friends/contacts across the entire spectrum from RCs and Orthodox to the community and 'house-churches'.
If I were to remain CofE it wouldn't be because some central body is going to come and bankroll things or because I can escape involvement with committees and conferences and all that malarkey but because I prefer a more liturgical and sacramental approach to things these days.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Zacchaeus and Curiosity Killed the Cat
You misunderstood my earlier post. I didn't say that the CofE benefits from big donations.
What I said was that breakaway groups have benefitted from big donations. I.e., in the early days, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, etc. were able to build churches and theological colleges due to donations from wealthy supporters. However, donations to maintain these buildings were usually much rarer, and once the number of such supporters declined or lost interest, it was very difficult to keep on a level footing.
Most Nonconformist churches, and also the 'new' churches of various types, are much more vulnerable to changing local financial circumstances than CofE congregations are. If the local congregation can't afford to maintain its building by its own efforts, and doesn't have the skills to drum up funds by other means, then it will usually be left to die. There's no sentimentality.
Methodist circuits may offer advice, but they don't carry failing churches. Smallish Methodist congregations that survive do so because they hire out their building and raise funds that way. From a purely financial point of view, local churches need wealthy members rather than poor ones. Indeed, the cynic in me feels that Methodist churches need good tenants more than they need members. At least the URC and Baptist churches can do without a minister if necessary (although this hastens church decline), but not all denominational structures allow churches to cut back to the bone.
According to Robin Gill's book 'The Empty Church Revisited', the CofE is much more reluctant to close churches, and will provide subsidies if necessary. CofE clergy sometimes talk about theirs being the only mainstream church left in a run-down neighbourhood. Yes, I know the situation is different from parish to parish, and that many CofE churches have been closed. But I'm making a comparison here, based on my own experiences as well as recorded examples.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
The point is though that when the CofE subsidise it is usually from the parish share, from other churchgoers in better off churches, rather than from some sort of central pot.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The URC share ministerial costs in a similar way; but the costs of buildings are largely up to the local congregations.
So not much difference there, then.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Could you not all start sharing your buildings? There are enough hours on a Sunday for you all to get a go, if you started at, say, 8am and carried on until 9pm.
Something like this:-
8am Breaking of Bread (Brethren)
9am Morning Prayer (C of E)
10am Mass (RCC)
11am Matins/Holy Communion (C of E)
12noon Baptist morning service (a bit longer, with brilliant sermon)
2pm URC (also quite long, good hymns!)
4pm Methodists (if they can get hold of a preacher)
6pm Evensong (C of E)
7pm Joint Baptist/URC/Methodist Evening Service
8pm Quaker Meeting
Costs could be shared. Only one advert per week needed in the local rag.
An issue would be clearing the church quickly enough between services. Like in the old days of the continuous programme at the cinema, worshippers might find themselves watching the film more than once.
[ 07. December 2013, 16:17: Message edited by: Francophile ]
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That would never work - Baptists have to have Sunday Lunch on the table by 1.30 pm at the latest, it's in their Constitution.
Their "brilliant sermon" would be drowned out by tummy rumbles.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Sadly it wouldn't work in our churches either - small villages and no other denominations around, unless you want to start a new one so that we can share?
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Where there are teams of CofE churches, services are timed so that the one minster can get around them all, so 8am, 9am, 10am, 11am, 3pm and 6pm as a pattern in some joint parishes is not unknown. Here it's 8am, 9:20am, 11:10am, 6pm - with 4pm evening services occasionally. Setting times like that doesn't allow for circuits of ministry.
You'd also need to allow for reordering the church between the services for different styles of services - that can take a while too.
But there are churches that do share with another congregation. The Greek Orthodox church used to meet in St Michael's, Sunderland, from about midday. That's the church that is now the Minster.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
When the CofE subsidise it is usually from the parish share, from other churchgoers in better off churches, rather than from some sort of central pot.
What happens if none of the churches in a parish is particularly well-off?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Svitlana - it's not a parish level, it's at diocesan level. So the diocese supports churches by the way they charge the parish share. The formula for parish share is calculated differently across the country, but it usually is slanted so smaller churches or churches in challenging areas pay less proportionally than bigger churches in more affluent areas. The "wealthier" churches get to pay a surplus to support other churches within the diocese.
So here is a market town. Within the diocese there are inner city parishes and small rural parishes. This parish pays an annual share of about £90,000 for one minister. That more than covers costs and supports both the small rural parishes, the inner city parishes and also pays a disproportionate amount of the team share, so supporting the two other churches in the team.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Which, to bring us full circle, is a thoroughly Biblical approach to dealing with church finances - the Apostles, or in this case their successors, ask those churches which have money to provide for those which don't.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Curiosity killed.....
Yes, I thought I must have misunderstood that bit of Zacchaeus's post! Still, to me this does sound like a 'central pot', even if it's a diocesan rather than a national one.
All Methodist churches must pay an 'assessment' to their circuit, and this covers ministers' salaries among other things - but not the upkeep of individual churches buildings. Larger, wealthier churches contribute more than others, but every church must be able to cover both its internal costs and its assessment.
Arethosemyfeet
It may be biblical, but of course it requires that the institution has enough of an income to be able to support weaker congregations. The CofE is probably the only denomination in England to have sufficient numbers of well-heeled congregations to be able to pursue this system effectively.
[ 07. December 2013, 19:14: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No, it's not a central pot. Dioceses work locally.
Parish Share does not cover the upkeep of local churches, it covers the cost of providing ministers, so salaries, pensions, ministerial support, the legal services, accountancy services et al.
And the so-called wealthy parishes are not necessarily as wealthy as assumed. Some rare churches do have generous donors and legacies. Most others have the same problems that all other churches do: many of the congregation live on fixed incomes, new members of the congregation do not understand the necessity to pay their way to have a church, established members who have been generous givers die or move away.
We have a particular problem in that we are within commuting distance of London and when people retire they not infrequently move away, which means those who have established a pattern of giving do not necessarily stay in the area. In addition, we have no retired clergy in this area to draw upon as it's too expensive for most retired clergy to live in this area.
[ 07. December 2013, 19:33: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Curiosity killed....
This discussion reminds me of Mr Cameron's 'We're all in this together!' That's nice to know! But seriously, thanks for trying to explain the funding procedure.
My point is that some other historical denominations - particularly the Methodists - are closing more churches than the CofE, and that there are reasons for that. The CofE is struggling and declining, but they are more likely to subsidise large churches with small congregations when other denominations cannot. This is why Methodist and URC congregations disappear from villages and inner city areas when CofE congregations hang on. (In the book I referenced above, see p. 65. You'll find it on Googlebooks.)
To put it bluntly, it's interesting and potentially quite useful for me to consider which of my local congregations is still likely to exist in 20-30 years' time. All of them might have gone by then, but who's likely to be the last man standing? For a start, CofE churches are simply more numerous, so even if they close one or two, there'll still be others within walking distance.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It may be biblical, but of course it requires that the institution has enough of an income to be able to support weaker congregations. The CofE is probably the only denomination in England to have sufficient numbers of well-heeled congregations to be able to pursue this system effectively.
You're correct, of course. I was just commenting on the artificial distinction between "new testament" and "established" churches made earlier in the thread.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I wouldn't rely on the CofE being there either.
All the dioceses are having discussions on how to reduce the number of clergy employed further to cut costs and to deal with the reducing numbers of clergy to employ. We have a disproportionate number of clergy coming up to retirement now - it's something like 40%. That's caused by the policy of ordaining mature candidates through the last few decades so they will be retiring at the same time as the last time we were ordaining young clergy in the 80s.
To meet this need there are consultation documents on how to involve the laity more to keep the churches running.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There you are, SvitlanaV2, stick around with the CofE and sooner or later a consultation document will come round asking for greater lay involvement in order to keep the show on the road. At that point your dreams will have come true ...
And you can be involved with the committee that meets to decide how to dispose of the last remaining church building in your area ...
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Curiosity killed....
Put like that, it sounds as if the main reason for getting the laity involved is to cover for the lack of clergy. Nothing especially CofE about that, admittedly. On a positive note, I'm sure many laypeople have benefited from the encouragement.
Gamaliel
Redundant Methodist churches are generally flogged off to the highest bidder regardless of any 'consultations'. I understand that the CofE has a broader range of considerations, but in any one sub/urban setting I can't imagine that more than two or three options would be realistic.
I must say, I know of quite a few former Nonconformist churches that are used for other things, but CofE ones seem much rarer. In my city at least, they appear more likely to be demolished. Are CofE churches ever converted into mosques or gurdwaras?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I can think of a number of Orthodox churches in London that use old CofE buildings. I can also think of several concert / community halls in London and elsewhere that are old CofE churches, and there's a house near here that is a converted church.
I think that I have heard somewhere that the CofE is not allowed legally to sell churches to non-Christian faith groups.
Personally, I think this level of involvement of the laity is assuming a pool of voluntary labour that if it exists now isn't going to for much longer - those retired and healthy with spare money, which with retirement ages will be in work too. The stay-at-home wives have been gone for a while. And too many of us are being expected to run the church and be salt and light where we work - to provide money for the charitable giving that funds the work. It's a recipe for burning out the laity.
[ 08. December 2013, 16:12: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In other parts of the country I've seen CofE churches that have become restaurants, been split into flats, etc. But in towns and cities of the West Midlands the CofE is at disadvantage if it refuses to sell church buildings to be used for non-Christian worship.
Church decline obviously creates problems for lay involvement as well as reducing the numbers of clergy. I have my own experience of that! I suppose I just feel that as we see the troubling future ahead of us we should be thinking about how to deal with that now. To me, this involves having an informed laity. Otherwise, what hope is there?
At my former church a few of the old folk used to say (but not to me) that they didn't really care about the future of the church so long as it was there to bury them. The people who passed these comments on to me were always very indignant about them. But perhaps the general sentiment is more widespread that we thought. Accepting this will in itself require readjustment. Maybe there needs to be a survey of how ordinary CofE churchgoers see the future of their own church and of the wider denomination. That would be very interesting.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I agree with that SvitlanaV2. I also agree with Curiosity Killed about the prospect of laity burn-out.
Our vicar's a good bloke but it doesn't seem to occur to him that people have lives and other things to do that don't revolve around church ...
I suspect there will be increasing levels of lay involvement or 'informed knowledge' as you put it of the way things are run in the CofE. That's bound to happen and circumstances will dictate that.
I was being facetious, of course, by suggesting that you hang around because sooner or later you'll get the kind of 'lay knowledge' that you've been posting about - but I think that it will happen in time.
I don't see the current set-up within the CofE as at all nefarious though. If people want to know about the internal mechanisms and processes and so on then they can find out. Most people have better things to do with their time ...
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with that SvitlanaV2. I also agree with Curiosity Killed about the prospect of laity burn-out.
[...]
I suspect there will be increasing levels of lay involvement or 'informed knowledge' as you put it of the way things are run in the CofE. That's bound to happen and circumstances will dictate that.
It will be interesting to see how lay burn-out and lay involvement will impact on each other.
I think I probably speak as someone who's burned-out, but who still feels that lay involvement is important - after all, lay burn-out is caused by having too few involved laypeople. But simply drafting in laypeople to replace the gaps left by non-existent or overworked clergy isn't the answer. What's the theology behind it? It doesn't exactly sound empowering for the laity. Some people will just end up feeling used rather than empowered. But as I said, I'm sure some will be encouraged by the opportunities it provides. Perhaps it'll lead to new ways of thinking in some quarters.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm all for lay-involvement too, SvitlanaV2. But it all depends as to what end. What's the point of it? What's the purpose?
If it's about empowerment then empowerment to do what exactly? Lead church services? Have a say in how things are run?
There's a balance between all of that and what we do the rest of the week and how we seek to be salt and light in our communities. I'm very wary these days of anything that sucks up all our time so that we become so church-centred that we hardly do anything else.
I've been there before.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Redundant Methodist churches are generally flogged off to the highest bidder regardless of any 'consultations'. I understand that the CofE has a broader range of considerations, but in any one sub/urban setting I can't imagine that more than two or three options would be realistic.
The parish where I grew up sold its listed Victorian town centre church for a token sum in exchange for getting a 999 year lease on a piece of council property closer to where people live, and sold the site of it's 50s mission church for housing. The town centre church was extended and converted into the Foyer, providing accommodation and training for homeless young people. Seemed like an excellent use for it to me.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Back in the 1970s a church on the southern edge of the diocese of St Albans sold a redundant mission hall to the local synagogue. It had previously sold a parcel of land once destined for a third (!) daughter church to the United Synagogue Burial Society to add to its already large cemetery (last resting place of Peter Rachman and Alma Cogan, etc).
As for uses for redundant churches: I'd rather see them turned into mosques than carpet warehouses of bingo halls...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think I probably speak as someone who's burned-out, but who still feels that lay involvement is important - after all, lay burn-out is caused by having too few involved laypeople. But simply drafting in laypeople to replace the gaps left by non-existent or overworked clergy isn't the answer. What's the theology behind it? It doesn't exactly sound empowering for the laity. Some people will just end up feeling used rather than empowered. But as I said, I'm sure some will be encouraged by the opportunities it provides. Perhaps it'll lead to new ways of thinking in some quarters.
'What's the theology behind it?' is exactly the right question, I'd say. If the idea is to provide with lay people precisely what has, in the past, been provided by full-time clergy, then that's not going to work IMO. People will get burned out.
I think churches and denominations in this position need to have a more wide-ranging conversation about what the church should provide, in terms of the actual services and all the rest-of-the-week stuff that clergy (used to?) do.
From the point of view of the non-clergy, I think the mindset of being provided for has to disappear completely. If people (people generally, not specifically meaning anyone here) consider their church to be providing something for them, then they need to pay a reasonable rate for that service; while if people have a more community-minded view of what church is, then they need to think about how they can contribute to that community (prayer, time, money, expertise etc.).
On the dwindling, ageing congregations thing - maybe denominations need to more strongly encourage 'transfers', whereby a group of people from a thriving congregation get involved in the struggling congregation for a while, helping them with whatever they need. I know there are issues - e.g. it feeling like a takeover - but it seems like one way of keeping a viable congregation in a community (where the people aren't willing to try something more radically cost-cutting like meeting without clergy in a home, pub, cafe etc.).
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the idea of the CofE as some kind of spiritual NHS providing services such as 'hatched, matched, despatched' is prevalent to a certain extent, but not as strong as it once was.
Our vicar caused a bit of a stir when he refused to visit old ladies and the house-bound with communion. Instead, he set up a mid-week Coffee & Communion service which is well attended by the elderly and infirm. It relies heavily on volunteers to drive, collect, fetch and carry, serve the tea etc ...
So something he initiated partly to save himself time has, arguably, ended up causing a lot of work and effort for other people ... although the initiative is regarded as a success and I would concede that it is, overall.
Incidentally, he will now take communion individually to elderly people's homes on request as he seems to have realised that this is what is expected ...
His reservations about the practice are probably because he thinks it's too 'catholic' ... he's very low-church. In the same way he has plain candles for the Advent candles rather than the colour-coded ones that represent Mary and so on. His rationale for this is that the colour-coding isn't in the Bible ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I keep wanting to point out that Advent candles aren't in the Bible either if he wants to be that anal and literal about it ...
You'll appreciate that I don't have any issue with coloured Advent candles whatsoever. Bring them on ...
I s'pose it all boils down to expectations. People of a certain generation expect the vicar to bob around for tea and to take them communion. Fair enough.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose it all boils down to expectations. People of a certain generation expect the vicar to bob around for tea and to take them communion. Fair enough.
You say fair enough, but who's going to pay for the vicar to do this? That's the difficult question, ISTM, and illustrates what I was getting at with my previous comment. I wonder if a fair chunk of people of this 'certain generation' do actually think of the church (C of E, typically, I guess) as a 'spiritual NHS'. Nice phrase, by the way!
Edited to add...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So something he initiated partly to save himself time has, arguably, ended up causing a lot of work and effort for other people ... although the initiative is regarded as a success and I would concede that it is, overall.
ISTM a good thing that this initiative has caused a lot of work and effort for other people (as long as they find it manageable, of course...). I'm all in favour of more people getting involved in contributing to the life and ministry of their church, and getting away from the expectation that the clergy should do it all.
[ 09. December 2013, 13:07: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I s'pose it all boils down to expectations. People of a certain generation expect the vicar to bob around for tea and to take them communion. Fair enough.
Well, there are multiple sources here for such an expectation. I suppose in earlier times, especially in small communities it was seen as expected that the Vicar would visit the more important members of the community in their home from time to time, as a kind of socio-religious function.
OTOH, if you read Baxter and others - there was a train of thought that felt very strongly that the pastor should be out visiting his parishioners as a matter of duty.
A family member of mine - now retired - spent a fairly long period of time as a minister, and was always bemused by the thought that younger ministers would stay at church all day in their 'office' - something that was quite alien to him, as he would visit 5-6 families on the days he was working.
ISTM that as much as there are problems with this pattern - and the expectations it sets up - in many larger churches, the reason it has died a death is because of the shift in seeing the Vicar as a kind of CEO who sets 'vision' and where volunteers attend to the daily 'cure of souls'.
[ 09. December 2013, 13:36: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'd agree with that, Chris Stiles.
It's all down to context. As it happens, I do think - in this context - that it is a fair enough expectation that 'visitation' should form part of the vicar's ministry.
Why do I say that?
Because it's something that people round here are used to and because it's something that other clergy in the area seem to be able to do.
I think Baxter was onto something.
That said, I think there are settings where it would not be feasible nor desirable. I think part of the problem - at least initially - was that our vicar was operating with a largely suburban contemporary evangelical frame of reference with the expectation that those with a more 'rural' and traditional experience and expectation would simply roll over and conform to that.
I'm not knocking his Coffee and Communion thing by the way, I think it's a good initiative and I applaud it. Just so long as taking communion to old ladies' homes remains an option as well ... and he does do that now in a number of instances.
Obviously, I'm not suggesting he do that all day every day ... but it does mean a lot to people.
I've known several people in my time - including a couch-bound severely handicapped great-aunt for whom the weekly visit by the vicar with communion was an exceptionally important life-line.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
You say fair enough, but who's going to pay for the vicar to do this?
I hope you don't see this as picking on you - but I think that at least some people would feel that this is why they have a vicar to start with, and as per my previous post I think something is lost when the vicar moves to a more 'executive' role and visitations are carried out by members of the congregation. Which isn't to say that both shouldn't happen.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed, both/and rather than either/or ...
Incidentally, my experience of house-churchy set-ups has been that leaders in those settings were often very good at visiting elderly and infirm members of their congregations and so on ... but the mileage varied.
I know Anglican churches where the vicar regularly visits house-bound or elderly people as well as and alongside a small team of pastoral support people ... so it's not a case of clergy and no-one else but both/and rather than either/or ...
I've probably said this to SCK before, but 'clerical'-led churches often look a lot less clerical/leader-led from the inside rather than the outside.
I can think of several new-church/Free Church settings I know of where things are a heck of a lot more 'top-down' than they are in more avowedly 'clerical' set-ups.
The mileage varies across the spectrum, of course. Just because a bloke or a woman wears a dog-collar or cassock it doesn't mean that they are any more or any less involved pastorally than church leaders who wear suits and ties, jeans and T-shirts or those checked Hawaiian style shirts that appear to be de-rigeur in some quarters.
There are probably as many layers and aspects to all this as there are church-leaders and clergy-people of all stripes and types.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Just for the record, Baxter was not into visiting members, housebound or otherwise.
He was into having members as family visit him or another catechist at regular intervals and basically go through a catechism with them as a family group.
Sometimes it really is worth reading the original, oh and two thirds of the book is bewailing the current state of the clergy at the time.
Jengie
[ 09. December 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Who is saying that I haven't read the original, Jengie Jon?
What has Chris Stiles or myself written that suggests otherwise? Unless it's Chris's use of the term 'parishioners' rather than members.
And how do you know that the parishioners I've been talking about who expect visits from the vicar wouldn't also regard themselves as 'members'?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Well there is a suggestion that Baxter is about visiting parishioners or members especially the housebound and the infirm. He clearly isn't if you have read him.
Jengie
[ 09. December 2013, 18:27: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Our PP (where I play) is only house-for-duty part time - and the parish has to pay all his expenses, the diocese pays nothing AND we pay a parish share.
Anyway, he's of the old school and visits on his work days, as well as putting his head round the door of the school, and there are regular communion services in the retirement homes in the parish.
The only problem we have is that he's been told he should deal with all the parish admin, not anyone else, and he's absolutely useless at at: non-tech to the utmost (doesn't own any kind of computer, can't type, etc) he also seems incapable of keeping paperwork in any kind of order.
We're just completing a cunning move to get around this problem at the moment - but till all the ducks are in a row we'll still have nightmares about a wedding party turning up all unexpected ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Meanwhile, his visiting is much appreciated and has resulted in people who only ever used to appear at Christmas coming more frequently.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In fact, I'm annoyed at this ...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Why is it that Jengie acts as if she's the only person in the entire world to have actually read any Baxter or who knows anything at all about the reformed tradition?
I think Chris was simply alluding to the practice of visiting people - whether members, families, households whatever else - as part of clergy/ministerial duties.
Yes, I'm perfectly aware that Baxter catechised these people and this isn't wouldn't necessarily be what contemporary clergy would have in mind but it was the broad practice and principle that Chris and I were alluding to.
Neither of us pretend to be experts on Baxter or Presbyterianism and so on. We were simply alluding to the practice of house-visiting and one-to-one clergy visits for whatever purpose ... whether to visit the house-bound for communion or for catechesis ...
Stroll on ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
FFS Jengie, it's no wonder the early Puritans were often called 'Precisians' - because they were so nit-picking.
Baxter was simply used as an example of a cleric who believed in visiting people in their homes. The housebound examples were from current experience and settings.
Nobody said anything about whether Baxter visited the housebound or whether he went to the toilet before he went out nor how many sheets of toilet paper he used to wipe his arse ...
And yes, I am aware that they didn't use toilet paper in those days ...
FFS ...
--------------------
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
