But the Church is rich! (Part Two)

So my upbringing led me to believe that the Church of England was not only rolling in money but that aside from the cash they took from the 'poor' (i.e. those who filled the pews on a Sunday) but that they owned a greater part of Central London and made money from the excesses and vices that filled those areas. This was something that was just there, it didn't make me antagonistic and it didn't make we feel good about them, it was just as it was for 'The Church' and all the others who had loads of money!

Oddly, I remember as child newspaper headlines about 'selling the family silver'* and my Dad telling me about the way that having property, possessions and money meant that you could always have access to money. The very act of 'having things' meant that you could make money apparently. This sounded odd to a ten year old and so I asked the Father how this could be and received a lecture on interest on money deposited and case to be made from property rented and how the only things in life that could be trusted were gold, property and things that gained in worth for these were the things that just kept on giving. Selling them meant a short-term increase in what you had and covered the fact that once this was gone, you had much less! This was what 'selling the family silver' was all about.

So I learned that where it was possible, prudent people (and organisations like 'The Church') would accrue property, land, things and of course, money, and these would ensure that there was always money to pay the bills and live your life. I also learned that having lots of numbers behind a pound sign meant you were rich but that being rich didn't mean that you had money, a strange conundrum indeed! If an organisation or individual is 'rich' then they can spend and live as if they are rich (and then be poor) or can live comfortably off of what they have and continue to do so (with the odd excess I'm sure) ad infinitum. This is where the Church of England should be!

Yes it has money and lived off of its property, land and stuff for a long time but sadly those who invested and were supposed to make money for the body haven't always done such a stand-up job of the task and so money (income and owned) has been lost. Some of this has been recouped because of the land owned and other things but the reality is still that whatever the church owns is there to be a source of income and should be helping to keep us (the CofE) afloat. (A bit of fact: Lots of Central London is owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Queen, the Earl of Cadogan and Paul Raymond!)

We couldn't live on the money that comes in through offerings and donations and so the having stuff element is an important factor in terms of keeping the light on. The same was, and is, true when it came to St Paul's for even though many comment that, "It's a church, who would pull the electricity on a church?" the answer is simple, "Every energy supplier, tradesman and person who does business with it!" People need to have their bills paid to live and the church is just another customer and if they don't pay they get treated the same way as every other customer who doesn't pay. It's ironic that those who don't see the Church as special suddenly think that by being 'Church' it is absolved of the moral and contractual obligations before it - not so.

The bottom line (honestly) is this:
The Church might have money, land and possessions and it is these that, invested and managed wisely, underpins and provides the money needed to keep being the real 'Big Society' and keep our lights on.

Pax

* Ironically these were to do with Alec Douglas-Hume who many years later accused Margaret Thatcher of exactly the same thing!

ps. Hopefully this explains why 'being church' isn't the negative that some would seek to make it and helps to lay the foundations of a defence of Church as an institution. I am assuming the same goes for RC plc but they just have a lot more of everything. I'm sure they use their wealth and stuff to help the poor (don't they?).