Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Taxing Churches
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: A church whose sense of mission is weak is unlikely to attract very generous gifts of money, ISTM.
You'd be surprised. Sometimes people leave quite large sums because of past family ties or because they like the building.
quote: Some churches also manage to raise a lot of money letting out their property. I do think it would be unfair to penalise them for doing this, since I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases the income helps them hugely.
And it may also be a "public benefit" if they're the only such facility in the area. [ 23. September 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Strong family ties to a particular church surely suggest a close-knit community with a stable sense of identity. It's a shame for a church to enjoy that kind of benign environment and yet have nothing to offer.
As for beautiful and/or historical church buildings, some say the state and other bodies should actually be funding their maintenance, not taxing them. The National Trust would be vociferous in arguing that these churches needed more financial support, not less.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: Strong family ties to a particular church surely suggest a close-knit community with a stable sense of identity. It's a shame for a church to enjoy that kind of benign environment and yet have nothing to offer.
As for beautiful and/or historical church buildings, some say the state and other bodies should actually be funding their maintenance, not taxing them. The National Trust would be vociferous in arguing that these churches needed more financial support, not less.
This is much, much less of an issue in the US, particularly the West Coast, then it is in the UK. The closest thing we have in California is our historic missions, almost all of which have been decommissioned and now are state parks or museums, with no religious activity (and little acknowledgment of such).
Which seems better, IMHO. It would seem to me that maintaining a historic bldg would be an unnecessary burden & distraction for a viable, living Christian community. It's just so far afield from your core purpose. Not contrary to your purpose, of course-- it's a fine and worthwhile undertaking. But really unrelated to why you exist as a community. So it seems to me like it would inevitably become a distraction that bleeds your limited resources, both financial and volunteer, even if there were greater govt subsidies.
Altho I realize this may be a distinctly American perspective.
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
There's something peculiarly depressing and lifeless about a church that is just being kept on as a historic building but isn't being used as a church any more.
It's a bit Ichabod, the glory og the Lord has departed. [ 24. September 2016, 18:10: Message edited by: Enoch ]
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: There's something peculiarly depressing and lifeless about a church that is just being kept on as a historic building but isn't being used as a church any more.
So you are depressed when you visit the Parthenon? Angkor Wat would leave you in a funk? Luxor lowers your mood?
Beautiful buildings lift a culture in a fashion that pure utilitarianism does not. This is, IMO, the only justification for Christian (and Buddhist) structures of any grandeur.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
cliffdweller
Things sound more straightforward in the USA. Over here, the challenges are many. The CofE in particular is burdened with many beautiful old buildings with small or indeed non-existent congregations. Many are buildings which can't legally be sold for secular (or otherwise non-Christian) use, and/or are bound by listed status, which means they're expensive to convert to other uses. Some are simply in areas where little alternative use could be made of them.
Then there's the cultural issue. The Christian heritage that the public admires is bound up with ancient churches. Relatively few people require the ministrations of their local vicar, but his beautiful church may be a building they feel they own and take pride in. So although many CofE clergy and churchgoers might yearn to throw off the shackles of their ancient churches, they'd be risking a PR disaster if they abandoned their buildings all in one go.
OTOH, many people do imagine that 'the church' is full of money it doesn't deserve, and there are probably many communities where there is little shared affection for or awareness of churches as valuable buildings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: There's something peculiarly depressing and lifeless about a church that is just being kept on as a historic building but isn't being used as a church any more.
It's a bit Ichabod, the glory og the Lord has departed.
But perhaps less so than a church-- i.e. Christian community-- that exists only to maintain a historical relic-- whether that's a really old or even beautiful building, or a really old and even beautiful type of music or instrumentation (whoops! was that a dead horse I tripped over?). This might be even more true in places like California where our historic church buildings (missions) are connected to some rather shameful aspects of our not-too-distant Christian past misdeeds. Easier to let them be decommissioned where they make useful field trips for 3rd graders, and allow churches the freedom to I]be the church.[/I]
There's value and wisdom in every society in maintaining relics that connect us to the past-- that goes for countries and local communities as well as for faith communities. But what makes it alive is what God is doing in and thru the community now, today. [
-------------------- "Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: Strong family ties to a particular church surely suggest a close-knit community with a stable sense of identity. It's a shame for a church to enjoy that kind of benign environment and yet have nothing to offer.
That environment is not always benign. Close family ties to a church can lead to a sense of ownership that means that donations come with unmentioned strings. Usually along the lines of any change to the building to support the mission of the church will be met with anonymous letters made from cut out newspaper headlines threatening legal action and reversal of any alterations. Or maybe that's just round here...
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by lilBuddha: So you are depressed when you visit the Parthenon? Angkor Wat would leave you in a funk? Luxor lowers your mood?
No idea. I've never had the good fortune to visit any of them. But as they weren't used for the purposes of the religion I follow, I wouldn't expect them to have the resonances that a building that is used for Christian worship has.
I'm speaking as a Christian about buildings used for Christian worship. As such I'm saying what I feel about 'museumised' or ruined Christian buildings. quote: Beautiful buildings lift a culture in a fashion that pure utilitarianism does not. This is, IMO, the only justification for Christian (and Buddhist) structures of any grandeur.
That may be your opinion, but it isn't the only one, and I fundamentally disagree with it. The purpose for which a religious building is erected is for the use to which it is going to be put. Whether or not the builders put into it aesthetic qualities so as to edify worshippers, inspire worship, spect their deity, impress passers by etc., may well be significant, but it is a subsidiary, derivative, matter.
Apparently, there's some uncertainty as to how the Parthenon was used. The 'dead' religious structures most of us round here are most familiar with are probably Stonehenge and Avebury. They're moving to visit but no one really knows how they were used, or what gods were worshipped at them.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|