Of course this line of conversation will include that wonderful misquote, "Money is the root of all evil!" But then I'm sure we all know that what is really written, "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil - And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. (1Tim 6:10). At the end of the day it always comes down to what you love, for as the Bible so rightly says, "Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be."(Matt 6:21)
Yes indeedy, what we love guides the way that we live, think and act. If money is the prime mover in our life then money will be what we seek, what rules us and what occupies our thoughts all the time. The same is true of power, sex, and anything (and everything) that we can think of - and so where our love is moved from God and being Christlike to money and possessions, we become possessed by them.
But is the Church really rich and does it sit on its wealth like some a Scrooge-like miserly, miserable creature? Is it like Fagin in that it seeks only to acquire wealth at the expense of others, even if it means going outside of (God's) law?
My experience tells me that the answer is 'No' and then I remember my Father pointing out things and places when he was driving delivery vans (as a fire officer it was two days, two nights, two off and the 'off' meant working as a van driver!). Whenever we ended up in Soho he'd point out the statue of Charles II (by Caius Cibber), the brothels and clubs (Ronnie Scott's, mmm) and tell me how all the land they were built upon was owned by 'The Church'. We'd end up near Shepherd's MArket and as we watched the Toms (prostitutes) turning a trick he'd tell me that once again it was 'The Church' that owned the land.
By the time I was twelve I knew most of the landmarks of my home town (being a Cockney born and bred) and had come to understand that 'The Church' was a bunch of dodgy geezers what run the knocking shops and had, "More money than sense!" (Me dear old Dad's words!). Of course by this he meant the Church of England, but he was an egalitarian sort and so always had an opinion and view on the other brands as well.
First time we delivered around Westminister Cathedral (including a drop off at Horseferry Road home of the Magistrate's Court and birthplace of the A to Z (Phyllis Persall) we found ourselves stopping behind the Army and Navy store for lunch and me being told about the Catholics, the potato famine, Cromwell and how the 'left footers' (or often 'devil dodgers, especially when they were queuing on a Saturday night) were the richest institution in the world. Stories of starving people around the world (it wasn't just in Ireland) and fat clergy watching through windows as they ate, of riches amassed from the poor who sought to buy their way to heaven and more besides left me thinking that 'The Church' were a bunch of money-grabbing thieves!
But what of my opinion all these years later (and exiled far from home)?
Well, having set the scene, you will have to wait until tomorrow. But I will leave you with a question.
Who set the storyline for you regarding 'The Church' and was it true then and is it true now?
Wadyathink?
1 comment:
I actually think that most of the land you speak of is owned by the Duke of Westminster and his estate, as is most of Chelsea.
And as a former Catholic, we were off course taught exactly the opposite about the 'Non Catholics's' as the other denominations were disparagingly called.
Loads of folk lore,l not actual truth involved in this stuff. But getting back to Church, my view of church has varied with age. Early on, it was a pain in the neck - things I was obliged to do and be part of, without any real understanding and belief.
Later as a militant agnostic, I dispised the church for its mumbo-jumbo and delusional beliefs, which bound millions up in what seemed to be basically some form of superstition.
Latterly, having had a real life encounter with God, through Jesus Christ, my view of church has been formed from that encounter. I don't believe that the church is rich, particularly as most of its funds are expended on running costs.
I do wonder how sensible it is to continue to maintain monuments in terms of ancient churches, which drain resources from the real mission and evangelism and pastoral care needed to our wider community. But
I doubt that I'd win the argument to hand them over to the National Trust or English Heritage and move our congregations to village halls or schools or even, modern, purpose built buildings with love energy overheads and maintenance costs.
Post a Comment